Comment 9 for bug 1905115

Hi, Brian
Maybe, I didn't describe it clearly. The "cost" I mentoned is different with your. You mean the feature that this RFE proposed will add technology "cost", but I mean it will decrease the commerice "cost". Further elaboration, it will cost more less CPU and memory than existing schem and reduce the end user's action steps. I agree with you, almost all new feature will add technology "cost", but if it will descrease the commerice "cost" for our end user, I think it is worth. IMHO, The technology "cost" is one-off, we can as for as possible decrease it by better user docs and more careful code review. But, the reduction of commerice "cost" can be copy at multiple environment, This will make our product more attractive.

Moreover, about the implementation scheme of this RFE (This is my immature idea, if this RFE is approved I will commit a spec to descibe it in detail):
I think the "extenal services" should be planned before deploy environment, maybe it have some changes in the future, be I think it isn't frequent. So, I think we just confiure this "extenal services" in configuretation file is enough.
But, the "external_service_channels" parameter, we should extend it network. By update it, the end user can control open which channels on their network, This can reduce potential security vulnerabilities.

In addition, anothor possible user scenario:
Mount shared storage system by NFS (like manila). By the new feature, the many limits about network can be broken through. (This just my brainstorm, it's not verified.)