On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:55:03PM +0000, Edison Su wrote: > > > > -----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.
Does your $dayjob happen to have a customer that might be using this integration? If so, could your $dayjob product manager chime in on the discussion? > > > * 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? >
