Adding the related subject :) On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Mathieu Rohon <mathieu.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all, > > The current bgpvpn implementation is using the service type framework, > with a service plugin and one or more service providers. > > After registering the bug [1], I wonder if we would rather use a service > plugin per implementation type (bagpipe, ODL, OpenContrail, Nuage...) which > handles API calls, instead of having one service plugin which forwards API > calls to a service driver depending on the provider chosen by the end > user. > > I would like to better understand what would be the main drawbacks of such > a move apart from the fact that a deployment would be tightly coupled to a > bgpvpn plugin, and multiple implementations of the plugin couldn't coexist. > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > > [1]https://bugs.launchpad.net/bgpvpn/+bug/1485515 >
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
