On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 12:42:24PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote:


> >
> >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.

vdsm-devel mailing list

Reply via email to