Thomas Spatzier <thomas.spatz...@de.ibm.com> wrote on 11/21/2013 02:48:14 AM: > ... > Now thinking more about update scenarios (which we can leave for an > iteration after the initial deployment is working),
I recommend thinking about UPDATE from the start. We should have an implementation in which CREATE and UPDATE share as much mechanism as is reasonable, which requires thinking about UPDATE while designing CREATE. > in my mental model it > would be more consistent to have information for "handle_create", > "handle_delete", "handle_update" kinds of events all defined in the > SoftwareConfig resource. +1 for putting these on the definition instead of the use; I also noted this earlier. -1 for having an update method. The orientation to idempotent forward-progress operations means that we need only one, which handles both CREATE and UPDATE. Regards, Mike
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev