On 27 June 2014 07:51, David Cheney <david.che...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 4:21 PM, John Meinel <j...@arbash-meinel.com> wrote: >> Just my quick thought, I think moving it out from "state/api" into just a >> top level "api" would be reasonable and a lot less clumsy than trying to >> pull it out into an entirely separate repository. > > +1 > > I don't think the api package is useful outside Juju (at this time) > and splitting it into another repo just doubles the amount of work.
Do you mean that the API package isn't useful *from* outside Juju, or that the API package isn't useful *independently of* Juju? If the latter, I totally agree (the whole point is that it integrates with Juju) but if the former, I disagree. If we are to allow any external Go programs that use Juju (and I think we should - we should act as good citizens in the Go ecosystem) then the API package is the only way to do it. We shouldn't force people to write their own API interface just because we're not prepared to support our own. BTW, I think it would be a good idea to split off the agent parts of the API from the client parts - the former should not be considered public. -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
