> -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 11:22 AM > To: Edison Su > Cc: <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Swift in 4.2 is broken, anybody wants it to be supported in 4.2? > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:12:22PM +0000, Edison Su wrote: > > If it's ok to use S3 api talking to swift, then there is zero effort to > > support > Swift. > > But who will make the decision? > > We, as a community. It's *always* that answer. > > If you are proposing this as the corrective path, then ok... let's see if > others > have opinions about this though. > > Heres how I see it: > > Pros - > * Code within the master branch has functional S3 API support > * We seem to have more contribution around this interface spec > * Having S3 as the only non-NFS secondary storage API reduces the > long-term support / test efforts > > Cons - > * We may have an expectation issue for existing users that only have the > native Swift API enabled in their environment (although I'm not aware > of the Swift API's stability between their releases)
I think you get into the same situation as I did, without input from users who is using Swift, or the company who is supporting Swift, what we are talking about here is just hypothetic. If we really want to support Swift, and support it better, we need to get domain expert involved in the discuss. > * We haven't tested Swift as an S3 API provider yet (but could). > > Personally, if it gets tested and proven to work as well or better than other > S3 providers, I'm +1 on this being the remediation approach. > > Others?
