On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > These should be used as ways to experiment with the kinds of interfaces > we want cheaply, then take them back into services (which is a more > expensive process involving compatibility stories, deeper documentation, > performance implications, and the like), not an end game on their own.
I totally agree here. But I also see the rate of progress for many and varied reasons, and want to make users lives easier now. Have any of the lessons already learned from Shade or OSC made it into services yet? I think a few may have, "get me a network" being the obvious one. But that still took a lot of work (granted that one _is_ complicated). > You can get the behavior. It also has other behaviors. I'm not sure any > user has actually argued for "please make me do more rest calls to > create a server". Maybe not in those words, but "give me the tools to do what I need" has been heard often. Sometimes those tools are composable primitives, sometimes they are helpful opinionated interfaces. I've already done the helpful opinionated stuff in OSC here (accept flavor and image names when the non-unique names _do_ identify a single result). Having that control lets me give the user more options in handling edge cases. dt -- Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev