Hi all,
I've been promising to do more knowledge sharing on IPA Hardware
Managers, specifically in the form of a presentation. However, I wanted
to go a different route that would be more likely to stand the test of
time and be more self-service.
To that end, I've created a couple of well-commented example hardware
managers here:
https://github.com/jayofdoom/ipa-example-hardware-managers. If you've
been wanting to know about how to write additional IPA Hardware
Managers, between this and the already-existing inline documentation in
IPA itself there should be more than enough information to get started.
PRs and feedback accepted.
As a note, my hope is that we can find a reasonable place for this to
live in the openstack namespace. I only created this in github so I
could spend my time this afternoon writing the examples rather than
getting repositories created.
While working on this, however, I came to a realization -- despite our
documentation telling folks to subclass *either*
hardware.HardwareManager or hardware.GenericHardwareManager
(http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic-python-agent/#how-can-i-build-a-custom-hardwaremanager),
after a lot of thought (and some time spent trying to drum up a use case
for an example where it's useful), I think we should change this, and
only encourage subclassing HardwareManager for out of tree hardware
managers. I don't believe there's a technical way to prevent it, so it
shouldn't technically be an API break, but I wanted to get a consensus
before moving forward and making that change.
I hope the information is useful!
Thanks,
Jay Faulkner
OSIC
__________________________________________________________________________
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
