Hi Geoff, I think a mix of (2) and (3) could be a good approach: Brooklyn can expose a generic "server" interface, and we can have a "server cloud provider" implementations. It's a kind of plugins mechanism. We can provide some plugins in Brooklyn itself, but open the door to our users/cloud providers to implement their own plugins.
Thoughts ? Regards JB On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:03 PM Geoff Macartney <geom...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Just to follow up on the email I just sent, I have been meaning to say the > time has come to discuss what we do if jclouds does move to the attic. > Options seem to me to include: > > 1. Fork jclouds. > 2. Figure out some small/minimal subset of functionality we need and > implement it ourselves within Brooklyn > 3. Change the Brooklyn model, most obviously removing the support for > general "server" and buckety types, and just go with cloud provider > specific entities. > 4. ??? There are bound to be more. > > Let's talk. What shall we do? > > Regards > Geoff
