Hi all, Just to ask again, what are your thoughts on what we should do when jclouds retires? I like JB's suggestion of making the implementation of a generic "server" (or storage object) pluggable, and of course that would be easy to do with Karaf. Any thoughts on what this might look like?
Regards Geoff On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 06:36, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Geoff, > > I think a mix of (2) and (3) could be a good approach: Brooklyn can > expose a generic "server" interface, and we can have a "server cloud > provider" implementations. It's a kind of plugins mechanism. We can > provide some plugins in Brooklyn itself, but open the door to our > users/cloud providers to implement their own plugins. > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:03 PM Geoff Macartney <geom...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Just to follow up on the email I just sent, I have been meaning to say > the > > time has come to discuss what we do if jclouds does move to the attic. > > Options seem to me to include: > > > > 1. Fork jclouds. > > 2. Figure out some small/minimal subset of functionality we need and > > implement it ourselves within Brooklyn > > 3. Change the Brooklyn model, most obviously removing the support for > > general "server" and buckety types, and just go with cloud provider > > specific entities. > > 4. ??? There are bound to be more. > > > > Let's talk. What shall we do? > > > > Regards > > Geoff >
