On 04/12/2017 02:15 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 04/12/2017 01:38 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 04/12/2017 11:21 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Just a question, not meant as anything bad against shade,
But would effort be better spent on openstacksdk?
tl;dr - great in practice, falls apart in the details
I don't think so - but it was an original thought, so it's certainly a
reasonable question.
openstacksdk is an SDK exposing the OpenStack APIs. It does not hide
differences between APIs, nor abstract into different concepts. shade
does. So I think they have different audiences and different intends in
mind.
Take the good parts of shade and just move it to openstacksdk, perhaps
as a 'higher level api' available in openstacksdk?
Then ansible openstack components (which I believe use shade) could then
switch to openstacksdk and all will be merry...
The thing is - for shade's needs, openstacksdk is both too much and not
enough simultaneously. (this is not intended to be a dig against sdk -
their goal in life is not to be a rest layer for shade, it's to be an
SDK for the OpenStack APIs)
To handle nodepool scale, shade needs to do some really specific things
related to exactly when and how remote interactions happen. In services
of its users, openstacksdk hides those interactions - which I think is a
nice feature for its users, but unfortunately removes shade's ability to
control those interactions in the way it needs to.
At the same time, the object model wrapper with magic generators and
whatnot doesn't add much value to shade past "get('/servers').json()" to
be quite honest.
So - I think handling our needs would be very annoying to the SDK folks,
and it would just unnecessarily make things complex for both sides.
In any case, like I said, it's a completely fair and legit question -
but as of right now I don't think it would actually make anyone's lives
better.
Just to provide a different though related perspective.
This is what success looks like. Lots of different people writing
different stuff, in different ways, talking to your API (which is the
REST API, not a library). Everyone implementing the slices that are
important for their consumers, and providing the fidelity that their
consumers need.
We should never think this is a bad thing.
Well, sure, I don't think it's a bad thing that there are multiple
clients to our REST API.
But I *do* think it's a bad thing that shade needs to exist to smooth
out all the rough edges, inconsistencies, implementation leaks and
flat-out silliness that our REST API has.
Best,
-jay
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
