On 17/06/13 19:10, Tooley, Christopher Tooley (STL) - contr wrote: > On 17/06/13 15:36, Tooley, Christopher Tooley (STL) - contr wrote: >> My apologies for the poor formatting and forgotten reference: >> >>> great timing on the request! Someone put in a feature request for the >>> OpenStack driver a couple weeks ago - tracked at [1] - that was >>> specifically for Elastic IPs and Security Groups. As you'll see on that >>> ticket I started the work of implementing this on the ruby-openstack >>> rubygem side >> >> Perfect, I'm looking at the fog/openstack/requests/network directory [ct1] >> and seeing what I need in that rubygem, is that what you're talking about? >> > > actually - as you may have found out already if you've seen the pull > request I referenced - the Deltacloud OpenStack driver uses the > ruby-openstack rubygem [1] to talk to the OpenStack services. > > Is there a reason that it's built on ruby-openstack instead of fog which > seems to drive some of the other providers? Especially as the the fog client > seems to already support a large portion of this stuff. >
well you raise a valid point. Historically we used ruby-openstack because we liked the idea of a single gem that is dedicated to all OpenStack services. The core Deltacloud devs ended up maintaining this rubygem and we built it out based on the needs of the Deltacloud OpenStack driver making releases as necessary. Indeed we already import fog for the Google (Storage only) driver and the Terremark driver. Perhaps now is the time to move the code over to Fog - but that will require some dedicated effort to make sure nothing breaks in the process, marios
