> As the person who -2'd the review, I'm thankful you raised this issue on
> the ML, Jay. Much appreciated.

The "metadetails" term isn't being invented in this patch, of course. I
originally complained about the difference when this was being added:


As best I can tell, the response in that patch set about why it's being
translated is wrong (backwards). I expect that the API extension at the
time called it "metadetails" and they decided to make the object the
same and do the translation there.

From what I can tell, the actual server_group API extension that made it
into the tree never got the ability to set/change/etc the
metadata/metadetails anyway, so there's no reason (AFAICT) to add it in

If we care to have this functionality, then I propose we change the
attribute on the object (we can handle this with versioning) and reflect
it as "metadata" in the API.

However, I have to ask: do we really need another distinct metadata
store attached to server_groups? If not, how about we just remove it
from the database and the object, clean up the bit of residue that is
still in the API extension and be done with it?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to