Does SAL proposal satisfy arch principal #3

David Lenrow <david.lenrow@...>

Hi folks. Maybe I'm missing something but based on the discussion on yesterdays call, it seems like the SAL proposed does not satisfy architectural  principal #3: "Service Abstraction Layer (SAL): Where possible, allow for multiple southbound protocols to present the same northbound service interfaces."

I interpret this as a goal to, where possible,  enable one to write a service/application once and expect to get interoperability with all of the southbound drivers/plugins current and future.  Doesn't sound like this would result from what is proposed, and I'm not ready to accept that as impossible. The notion that one could close this gap with per-SBI translators appears to miss the point of the exercise.  Can someone point out what I've missed? If I understood correctly, I would expect many of you to push back and seek something that better meets the stated arch principal. Do we have the wrong goal or the wrong solution?

Dave Lenrow
Director, Partner Ecosystem
617 329 1861