2017-08-08 22:41 GMT+09:00 Boden Russell <boden...@gmail.com>: > On 8/7/17 10:39 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: >> If the thing you're doing doesn't fit in the mainline API, then what >> you're doing is making a new API. Extensions just bypass the important >> part where that API gets designed and thought through. > > Irrespective of opinions as to if API extensions are good or not, the > fact of the matter is we support them in neutron today and as a result > we have users that rely on them as well as the ability to interface > (CLI) with such extensions via python-neutronclient. That said, I think > this concern has been heard [1] and we will work to address it > short-to-mid term.
I totally agree with other comments that all API features should be upstreamed. Replying to Boden's question on the short-term solution. If you need CLI support, you can implement OSC plugin to support your API extensions rather than extending OSC or OSC plugin provided by python-neutronclient. If you need SDK support, you can provide your own python bindings (perhaps it will be most stable) or continue to use the python-neutronclient CLI extension mechanism (which extends methods based on "neutronclient.extension" entry points. Does it answer to you, Boden? Akihiro > As to neutron's longer-term goals W/R/T API extensions; I can't speak to > that. > > [1] > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-August/120759.html > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev