openstack team mailing list archive

[Ed Leafe <ed.leafe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:39 AM, John Dickinson wrote:

> The important thing is that code talks. If you want WADLs (or your flavor of WADLs), make them! Stop trying to architect systems for architects. These things are meant to be used. Let's focus on what is necessary for getting a reliable system into the hands of those who will be using it.

	This distills the discussion to its essence. Code talks. What we're all dancing around is who decides what that code is going to say. Do the developers decide this as they create the actual product, and then have that product documented after the fact? Or do some "architects" (god, do I hate that term in a software context!) decide ahead of time what the code is going to say, and then it's up to the devs to make it so.

	Swift had the advantage of starting out as a closed source project that only had to serve a single master, and thus didn't need external orchestration to keep it on track. Nova, OTOH, as a community development effort, essentially had to be all things to all people, which is unworkable; hence the need for some up-front design to keep some sort of focus to the development. The problem is that this inevitably descends into bikeshedding, which has been prominently on display in this thread.



-- Ed Leafe