Hi John,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:26 AM, John Dewey <[email protected]> wrote: > I have a similar concern. The underlying driver may support different > functionality, but the differentiators need exposed through the top level > API. > Not really, whole point of the service is to abstract the user from specifics of backend implementation. So for any feature there is a common API, not specific to any implementation. There probably could be some exception to this guide line that lays in the area of admin API, but that's yet to be discussed. > > I see the SSL work is well underway, and I am in the process of defining > L7 scripting requirements. However, I will definitely need L7 scripting > prior to the API being defined. > Is this where vendor extensions come into play? I kinda like the route > the Ironic guy safe taking with a "vendor passthru" API. > I may say that core team has rejected 'vendor extensions' idea due to potential non-uniform user API experience. That becomes even worse with flavors introduced, because users don't know what vendor is backing up the service they have created. Thanks, Eugene.
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
