3a712a9d67
Patch Set 4: Code-Review-1 (1 comment) Overall this looks good, I just think we need to figure out a plan for how we're going to evolve it over time without causing compatibility problems. Patch-set: 4 Label: Code-Review=-1
21 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
21 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
{
|
|
"comments": [
|
|
{
|
|
"key": {
|
|
"uuid": "ffd0ebdf_bb9abb6b",
|
|
"filename": "specs/rocky/vitrage-resources.rst",
|
|
"patchSetId": 4
|
|
},
|
|
"lineNbr": 63,
|
|
"author": {
|
|
"id": 4257
|
|
},
|
|
"writtenOn": "2019-01-03T04:10:19Z",
|
|
"side": 1,
|
|
"message": "OK, so my main concern is how we maintain backward compatibility as we move across the three phases. I see a few options:\n\n* Implement separate abstractions for each use case, like OS::Vitrage::MistralServerAutohealAction\n* Implement separate resources that expose all of each version of the Vitrage template format, like OS::Vitrage::V1Template\n* Expose the whole template format as a resource type, and to commit to co-evolving both the template format and the resource in only backward-compatible ways.\n\nThe current proposal takes the most generic name possible and applies it to a very specific thing, which sets you up for painting yourself into a corner later.",
|
|
"revId": "c02e0fb314a8cc7483bb0fc1c9239800a619f429",
|
|
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543",
|
|
"unresolved": false
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |