+1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Serg, > > This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not > just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on > 'MuranoPL') > > Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano > Engine? > > > Thank you! > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine >> specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated >> in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language >> core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an >> ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. >> >> Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? >> >> 1) muranoapi.engine.language; >> 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; >> 3) suggestions? >> >> -- >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. >> http://mirantis.com | [email protected] >> >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 >> +7 (903) 156-0836 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > > -- > > Timur, > QA Engineer > OpenStack Projects > Mirantis Inc > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Timur Sufiev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
