Hi, I believe there are two topics of discussion here, one of which is the terminology. The way things are implemented today, I agree that the “plugin” terminology seems a bit confusing. However, probably the bigger topic of discussion is what kind of a design is preferable, “backend” versus “plugin”? As Yong points out, today’s Quantum service completely relies on the plugin for providing all functionality, including functionality that is probably common across plugins (like state management of logical resources, IPAM, etc.). Going forward, would it make sense to push some of the common functionality into the Quantum service, and have plugins which actually behave like the name suggests?
Thanks, ~Sumit. From: netstack-bounces+snaiksat=cisco....@lists.launchpad.net [mailto:netstack-bounces+snaiksat=cisco....@lists.launchpad.net] On Behalf Of Yong Sheng Gong Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:05 PM To: Willian Molinari Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List; netstack@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Netstack] [Quantum] plugin -> backend Hi, Add it into openstack-dev and [quantum] into the subject. Yes, 'backend' seems better than 'plugin' for our case here. Our plugin is a must for quantum server to work, while 'plugin' tends to make us think it will provide more functionalities if we plug it in. And I don't think our plugin is 'pluggable backend'. I prefer to call it 'replaceable or configurable' 'backend' or 'dirver'. Thanks Yong Sheng Gong -----netstack-bounces+gongysh=cn.ibm....@lists.launchpad.net<mailto:-----netstack-bounces+gongysh=cn.ibm....@lists.launchpad.net> wrote: ----- To: "netstack@lists.launchpad.net"<mailto:netstack@lists.launchpad.net> <netstack@lists.launchpad.net><mailto:netstack@lists.launchpad.net> From: Willian Molinari Sent by: netstack-bounces+gongysh=cn.ibm....@lists.launchpad.net<mailto:netstack-bounces+gongysh=cn.ibm....@lists.launchpad.net> Date: 07/31/2012 07:26AM Subject: [Netstack] plugin -> backend Æ!! Hi folks! I was concerned to bring the "plugins" discussion because it looks like a bikeshedding and it probably was discussed before, but I think it will be beneficial at all. What motivated me to bring the discussion was the Metaplugin implementation (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/10181/) that looks like a quantum backend implementing support for plugins. When we first looked into quantum we thought that quantum plugin was following the same concept of all other plugins (ie we should install a lot of plugins to enhance the application) but we found that this is not the concept of quantum plugins, talking to Dan about this at the openstack summit I found the real concept of quantum plugins and I heard some people saying that plugins should be something like a "pluggable backend", so why not to call the plugin just "backend"? Looks natural to have just one backend at time and this backend should handle multiple plugins if needed (the metaplugin case). Sorry for bringing a non-technical discussion like this but every time someone asks me to explain what quantum does I need to show plugins as "backends" to make sense. I'm the only guy that think it's confusing? :P Just want to hear your ideas about this topic. -- Willian Molinari (a.k.a PotHix) -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack<https://launchpad.net/%7Enetstack> Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net<mailto:netstack@lists.launchpad.net> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack<https://launchpad.net/%7Enetstack> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
