https://review.openstack.org/#/c/245042 First patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/221648
I proposed this spec, because the function is really needed, many customers of our company complained that they have to write/manage many templates to meet their business(the templates are similar, can they re-used?), also magnum guys asked me for this function too. I know there are several previous discussions such as https://review.openstack.org/#/c/84468/ and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153771/ , but considering the user habits and compatibility with CFN templates, also the sample way is easy to implement based on our architecture, I proposed the same style as CFN. If you agree with it, I will be happy to continue this work, thanks:) -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Steven Hardy [mailto:sha...@redhat.com] 发送时间: 2015年12月18日 19:08 收件人: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 主题: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Status of the Support Conditionals in Heat templates On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:42:13PM +0300, Sergey Kraynev wrote: > Hi Heaters, > On the last IRC meeting we had a question about Support Conditionals spec > [1]. > Previous attempt for this staff is here [2]. > The example of first POC in Heat can be reviewed here [3] > As I understand we have not had any complete decision about this work. > So I'd like to clarify feelings of community about it. This clarification > may be done as answers for two simple questions: > Â - Why do we want to implement it? > Â - Why do NOT we want to implement it? > My personal feeling is: > - Why do we want to implement it? > Â Â * A lot of users wants to have similar staff. > Â Â * It's already presented in AWS, so will be good to have this > feature in Heat too. > Â - Why do NOT we want to implement it? > Â Â * it can be solved with Jinja [4] . However I don't think, that it's > really important reason for blocking this work. > Please share your idea about two questions above. > It should allows us to eventually decide, want we implement it or not. This has been requested for a long time, and there have been several previous discussions, which all ended up in debating the implementation, rather than focussing on the simplest possible way to meet the user requirement. I think this latest attempt provides a simple way to meet the requirement, improves out CFN compatibility, and is inspired by an interface which has been proven to work. So I'm +1 on going ahead with this - the implementation looks pretty simple :) We've debated Jinja and other solutions before and dismissed them as either unsafe to run inside the heat service, or potentially too complex - this proposed solution appears to resolve both those concerns. Steve __________________________________________________________________________ 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
