On 14:26 Jul 15, John Griffith wrote:
Ok, so I spent a little time on this; first gathering some detail around
what's been done as well as proposing a patch to sort of step back a bit
and take another look at this [1].
Here's some more detail on what is bothering me here:
* Inheritance
Hello Cinder,
Instead of reverting nearly everything what was done (and is currently ongoing).
I would strongly suggest to simply reduce the number of the classes stepwise.
I spend some time to analyze what it actually implemented for all the drivers.
Please see:
On 07/20/2015 07:16 AM, Marc Koderer wrote:
Hello Cinder,
Instead of reverting nearly everything what was done (and is currently
ongoing).
I would strongly suggest to simply reduce the number of the classes stepwise.
This makes sense, and this was the general plan as I recall -- to
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Marc Koderer m...@koderer.com wrote:
Am 08.07.2015 um 01:37 schrieb Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com:
On 18:38 Jun 22, Marc Koderer wrote:
Am 20.06.2015 um 01:59 schrieb John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com
:
* The BaseVD represents the functionality we
Am 20.06.2015 um 01:59 schrieb John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com:
* The BaseVD represents the functionality we require from all drivers.
Yep
* The additional ABC classes represent features that are not required yet.
* These are represented by classes because some features require
(not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Friday, June 19, 2015 at 7:59 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Implementation of ABC MetaClasses
Sure, I suppose that's fine
On 20 June 2015 at 02:59, John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, I guess my question is what's the real value in this intermediate
step. The bulk of these are things that I'd argue shouldn't be optional
anyway (snapshots, transfers, manage, extend, retype and even migrate).
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:43 PM, John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anyway, maybe I'm missing a big advantage here, but without understanding
what this gains it makes the code structure a bit hard to maintain
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:43 PM, John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, maybe I'm missing a big advantage here, but without understanding
what this gains it makes the code structure a bit hard to maintain and
follow in a number of ways. For example, in order to implement this in
Hey Everyone,
So I've talked a little in bits and pieces regarding the implementations
that are going in for the ABC metaclass work. First off, I think the use
of ABC is a good idea and has value, particularly as we approach/surpass 50
third party drivers.
The only thing that I'm wondering if
@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Friday, June 19, 2015 at 7:59 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Implementation of ABC MetaClasses
Sure, I suppose
11 matches
Mail list logo
