What exactly is the core set of functionalities Marconi expects all implementations to support? (I understand it is a subset of the HTTP APIs Marconi exposes?)
On 6/12/14, 4:56 AM, "Flavio Percoco" <fla...@redhat.com> wrote: >On 11/06/14 16:26 -0700, Devananda van der Veen wrote: >>On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> >>wrote: >>>> Against: >>>> >>>> € Makes it hard for users to create applications that work across >>>> multiple >>>> clouds, since critical functionality may or may not be available >>>>in a >>>> given >>>> deployment. (counter: how many users need cross-cloud >>>>compatibility? >>>> Can >>>> they degrade gracefully?) >>> >> >>The OpenStack Infra team does. >> >>> This is definitely unfortunate but I believe it's a fair trade-off. I >>> believe the same happens in other services that have support for >>> different drivers. >> >>I disagree strongly on this point. >> >>Interoperability is one of the cornerstones of OpenStack. We've had >>panels about it at summits. Designing an API which is not >>interoperable is not "a fair tradeoff" for performance - it's >>destructive to the health of the project. Where other projects have >>already done that, it's unfortunate, but let's not plan to make it >>worse. >> >>A lack of interoperability not only prevents users from migrating >>between clouds or running against multiple clouds concurrently, it >>hurts application developers who want to build on top of OpenStack >>because their applications become tied to specific *implementations* >>of OpenStack. > > >What I meant to say is that, based on a core set of functionalities, >all extra functionalities are part of the "fair trade-off". It's up to >the cloud provider to choose what storage driver/features they want to >expose. Nonetheless, they'll all expose the same core set of >functionalities. I believe this is true also for other services, which >I'm not trying to use as an excuse but as a reference of what the >reality of non-opinionated services is. Marconi is opinionated w.r.t >the API and the core set of functionalities it wants to support. > >You make really good points that I agree with. Thanks for sharing. > >-- >@flaper87 >Flavio Percoco >_______________________________________________ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev