From a vendor / consumer perspective, there are likely cases where consumers want to leverage the existing trove sqlachemy DB models and framework abstractions for their own extensions / features within the trove framework. For example a consumer may want to develop custom in-house (proprietary) add-ons which use persistence for trove which either they do not wish to contribute upstream, or they want to build out a PoC in-house before upstreaming. In such cases a more rapid time to value and lower risk investment can be achieved by leveraging the existing trove db framework and having the ability to plug-in their own schema / migration / etc..
The current trove sqlalchemy implementation contains the plumbing and support necessary to allow consumers to "plug-in" their own database mappers which in turn can
- What is the driving force behind this change?
- Does it allow for great flexibility? Stability? Security?
- Does this impact any configuration files? If so, which ones?
- Does this impact any existing tables? If so, which ones?
- Are the changes forward and backward compatible?
- Be sure to include the expected migration process
- Does this change any API that an end-user has access to?
- Are there any exceptions in terms of consistency with other APIs?
- How the command will look like?
- Does it extends the already existed command interfaces ?
- Which HTTP methods added ?
- Which routes were added/modified/extended?
- How does the Request body look like?
- How does the Response object look like?
- Does this change any internal messages between API and Task Manager or Task Manager to Guest
RPC API description
- Method name.
- Method parameters.
- Message type (cast/call).
- Does this change behavior on the Guest Agent? If so, is it backwards compatible with API and Task Manager?