> > > > Luckily, since these things are part of the ABI of Nova, they are > > versioned in many cases, and in all have a well defined interfaces on > > one side. Seems like it should be relatively straight forward to wrap > > the other side of them and call it a library. > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > Sounds great if we can call these ABI as a library, but seems still need > some refactoring on Nova side to make other projects be able to leverage it. >
I wouldn't drop the idea because of that. In the case of the os-brick library, there was common code for interacting with local storage management in both Cinder and Nova. We recognized this and started the os-brick library to move that code into one place. Cinder started using it right away, but it was at least a couple cycles before Nova started looking at it. I think that's perfectly fine. If you are able to start a library for your own use, and it has good and useful common functionality, then Nova can make the decision later if they want to take advantage of it. Sean __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
