Ruby, What you say makes sense to me. On keeping things consistent. So sounds good to me to always use them and not have them be optional.
John On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Ruby Loo <rlooya...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that if there is a use case for an *ED state, then we should have > it. And if we have one *ED state, I think it makes sense (and is > consistent) to have them for all the active states. > > If we have *ED states, I would prefer that we add them in when the active > state is added. So add <state>ING, <state>ED, <state>FAIL. If a particular > driver has nothing it wants to do in an *ED state, it can cause a > transition from the *ED state to the passive/stable state. > > I don't want the *ED states to be optional because that puts the onus on > the developer that needs the *ED state, to add it in (assuming they are > aware that this is possible) and put in whatever plumbing might be needed. > Which may mean that they'd have to modify code in another driver, that > didn't need *ED in the first place. (If an *ED state is added, all drivers > using that active state should handle the *ED state too because it is in > the state machine and I'd rather not complicate things by having state-ING > -> state-ED -> stable-state and state-ING -> stable-state. > > --ruby > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
