On 2015-03-23 21:31:30 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:35:50PM +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2015-03-23 15:15:18 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote: > > [...] > > > I don't want it suppressed. I want the use of API extensions and the > > > extension framework(s) to be completely dropped for all future > > > API-affecting work. > > [...] > > > > Perhaps controversial, but would it be worthwhile to propose to the > > Defcore working group that future compliance requirements include > > the absence of extensions to officially covered APIs? > > I don't understand what you're getting at, Jeremy. Could you elaborate? > > What do extensions have to do with future compliance requirements?
Defcore's focus is on establishing interoperability standards for OpenStack deployments, to ease the end-user experience. Right now its model depends on a whitelist of API features. As discussed many times before and brought up again in this thread, when providers or distributors "augment" OpenStack APIs to add their own special features without implementing them upstream, this necessarily creates interoperability issues. What I'm suggesting is that Defcore should not just specify which API features need to be supported, but also specify that nonstandard API features must not be added to the APIs its covering. -- Jeremy Stanley __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
