On 8/16/2014 10:09 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Sandy Walsh wrote: > >> I recently suggested that the Ceilometer API (and integration tests) >> be separated from the implementation (two repos) so others might plug >> in a different implementation while maintaining compatibility, but >> that wasn't well received. >> >> Personally, I'd like to see that model extended for all OpenStack >> projects. Keep compatible at the API level and welcome competing >> implementations. > I think this is a _very_ interesting idea, especially the way it fits > in with multiple themes that have bounced around the list lately, not > just this thread: > > * Improving project-side testing; that is, pre-gate integration > testing. > > * Providing a framework (at least conceptual) on which to inform the > tempest-libification. > > * Solidifying both intra- and inter-project API contracts (both HTTP > and notifications). > > * Providing a solid basis on which to enable healthy competition between > implementations. > > * Helping to ensure that the various projects work to the goals of their > public facing name rather than their internal name (e.g. Telemetry > vs ceilometer). +1 ... love that take on it.
> Given the usual trouble with resource availability it seems best to > find tactics that can be applied to multiple strategic goals. > Exactly! You get it. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev