On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Clint Byrum <[email protected]> wrote:
> IMO that is not really true and trying to stick all these databases into > one "SQL database" interface is not a use case I'm interested in > pursuing. > Indeed. "Any SQL database" is a useless interface. What I was trying to say is that some apps may work just on any MySQL while others require some specific version or variation or even impose some constraints on license or underlying operating system. One possible solution was to have some sort of interface hierarchy for that. Even better solution would be that all such properties be declared somewhere in HOT so that consumer could say not just "I require MySQL-compatible template" but "I require MySQL-compatible template with version >= 5.0 and clustered = True". Probably you can come with better example for this. Though interface alone is a good starting point. So for instance there is the non-Neutron LBaaS and the Neutron LBaaS, and > both have their > merits for operators, but are basically identical from an application > standpoint. While conforming to the same interface from consumer's point of view different load-balancers has many configuration options (template parameters) and many of them are specific to particular implementation (otherwise all of them be functionally equal). This need to be addressed somehow. Sincerely yours, Stan Lagun Principal Software Engineer @ Mirantis <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
