openstack team mailing list archive

[Soren Hansen <soren@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

2011/8/23 Jorge Williams <jorge.williams@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Imagine
> that Rackspace comes up with a feature to perform backups and places it in
> /backups.  HP comes up with it's own backup feature and also puts it in
> /backups. The features are different so a client expecting Rackspace backup
> will break when it encounters an HP /backup.  The idea of extensions is to
> prevent this from happening.

This makes no sense to me. Keeping it in extensions, outside of core,
encourages *exactly* the behaviour you say it's meant to prevent. If
there's a /backup concept in core, you won't have these problems,
because everyone will have the same api for backups. If you reduce
core to some absolute minimum amount of stuff, you're encouraging (if
not in fact forcing) people deploying OpenStack to add each their own,
incompatible implementation of backups (or whichever other feature it
is that you're for some reason keeping out of core). How does the
extensions concept solve any of this?

-- 
Soren Hansen        | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer    | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/