Æ!!
Hi folks!
I was concerned to bring the "plugins" discussion because it looks like a bikeshedding
and it probably was discussed before, but I think it will be beneficial at all.
What motivated me to bring the discussion was the Metaplugin implementation
(https://review.openstack.org/#/c/10181/) that looks like a quantum backend implementing
support for plugins.
When we first looked into quantum we thought that quantum plugin was following the same
concept of all other plugins (ie we should install a lot of plugins to enhance the application)
but we found that this is not the concept of quantum plugins, talking to Dan about this at
the openstack summit I found the real concept of quantum plugins and I heard some people
saying that plugins should be something like a "pluggable backend", so why not to call the
plugin just "backend"?
Looks natural to have just one backend at time and this backend should handle multiple
plugins if needed (the metaplugin case).
Sorry for bringing a non-technical discussion like this but every time someone asks me to
explain what quantum does I need to show plugins as "backends" to make sense.
I'm the only guy that think it's confusing? :P
Just want to hear your ideas about this topic.
--
Willian Molinari
(a.k.a PotHix)
Hi folks!
I was concerned to bring the "plugins" discussion because it looks like a bikeshedding
and it probably was discussed before, but I think it will be beneficial at all.
What motivated me to bring the discussion was the Metaplugin implementation
(https://review.openstack.org/#/c/10181/) that looks like a quantum backend implementing
support for plugins.
When we first looked into quantum we thought that quantum plugin was following the same
concept of all other plugins (ie we should install a lot of plugins to enhance the application)
but we found that this is not the concept of quantum plugins, talking to Dan about this at
the openstack summit I found the real concept of quantum plugins and I heard some people
saying that plugins should be something like a "pluggable backend", so why not to call the
plugin just "backend"?
Looks natural to have just one backend at time and this backend should handle multiple
plugins if needed (the metaplugin case).
Sorry for bringing a non-technical discussion like this but every time someone asks me to
explain what quantum does I need to show plugins as "backends" to make sense.
I'm the only guy that think it's confusing? :P
Just want to hear your ideas about this topic.
--
Willian Molinari
(a.k.a PotHix)