On 6 February 2016 at 03:28, Abhijit Menon-Sen <
a...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I think we need to accept it because it's reality.
>
> The focus of the project is to produce useful command-line tools, and I
> think that's the correct focus in terms of maximising utility.
>
> I would like to see improvements in (a) being able to run ansible as a
> subprocess, and (b) internal interfaces to make it easier to, say, set
> up and invoke a PlaybookExecutor. If we do these things, we may end up
> with a useful API someday, but I certainly don't want to *start* from
> there, i.e., promise that the present interface will remain unchanged
> forever.
>
> Maintaining a stable API for a project like Ansible is a non-trivial
> effort. If someone is brave enough to tackle that task (of coming up
> with a high-level API that can be retrofitted without major disruption,
> making it maintainable, and then actually documenting and maintaining
> it in the long term)… but I don't think we're anywhere near that point.
I guess my understanding of the lower level code lacks in being up to
date, and will stand corrected for now.
To me that is however are game changer of how I have been looking at
Ansible, and what I expected from it.
> P.S. Serge, your mail is full of U+8203 (zero width spaces) at the start
> and end of every line.
No clue. I was using the GMail web composer...
Serge