On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 12:42:24PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: <snip>
> > > >This is one advantage, but cetainly not the only one. More importantly, as > >pointed out by Dan K. and Dan B., keeping it separate will encourage > >modularization which is greatly needed in vdsm. As part of this > >modularization, > >it will be easier to see, specifically, what MOM is allowed to do; making > >writing a SELinux policy for the policy engine much easier. > > It's not a reason to commit to two separate remote APIs that will be > supported for a very long period. > Modularization and internal apis should be achieved regardless. > Moreover, since there is no modularization today, committing too > early for new apis might cause us pains in the future. > > So my offer is to do the modularization and define apis between mom > and vdsm but keep all internal. After a year we'll be able to judge > whether we got the right set and might be worth to spin off MOM. here I tend to agree with Dor; as I expressed on this list before, I do not find the suggested MOM setPolicy() api as very useful, and never found peace with its policy definition language. I am not very keen to expose it to the world. Maybe I'm narrow-minded, imagining only the ovirt-engine use-case. Dan. _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
