Looks good to me.


On 9/8/15, 4:40 AM, "Steven Hardy" <sha...@redhat.com> wrote:

>Hi all,
>So, lately we're seeing an increasing number of patches adding integration
>for various third-party plugins, such as different neutron and cinder
>This is great to see, but it also poses the question of how we organize
>user-visible interfaces to these things long term.
>Originally, I was hoping to land some Heat composability improvements[1]
>which would allow for tagging templates as providing a particular
>capability (such as "provides neutron ML2 plugin"), but this has stalled
>some negative review feedback and isn't going to be implemented for
>However, today looking at [2] and [3], (which both add t-h-t integration
>enable neutron ML2 plugins), a simpler interim solution occured to me,
>which is just to make use of a suggested/mandatory naming convention.
>For example:
>Or via directory structure:
>This would require enforcement via code-review, but could potentially
>provide a much more intuitive interface for users when they go to create
>their cloud, and particularly it would make life much easier for any Ux to
>ask "choose which neutron-ml2 plugin you want", because the available
>options can simply be listed by looking at the available environment
>What do folks think of this, is now a good time to start enforcing such a
>[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/196656/
>[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/213142/
>[3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/198754/
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to