On 04/21/2016 11:01 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 21/04/16 12:26 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Joshua Harlow wrote:
Thierry Carrez wrote:
Adrian Otto wrote:
This pursuit is a trap. Magnum should focus on making native container
APIs available. We should not wrap APIs with leaky abstractions. The
lowest common denominator of all COEs is an remarkably low value API
that adds considerable complexity to Magnum that will not
strategically advance OpenStack. If we instead focus our effort on
making the COEs work better on OpenStack, that would be a winning
strategy. Support and compliment our various COE ecosystems.
So I'm all for avoiding 'wrap APIs with leaky abstractions' and 'making
COEs work better on OpenStack' but I do dislike the part about COEs
(plural) because it is once again the old non-opinionated problem that
we (as a community) suffer from.
Just my 2 cents, but I'd almost rather we pick one COE and integrate
that deeply/tightly with openstack, and yes if this causes some part of
the openstack community to be annoyed, meh, to bad. Sadly I have a
feeling we are hurting ourselves by continuing to try to be everything
and not picking anything (it's a general thing we, as a group, seem to
be good at, lol). I mean I get the reason to just support all the
things, but it feels like we as a community could just pick something,
work together on figuring out how to pick one, using all these bright
leaders we have to help make that possible (and yes this might piss some
people off, to bad). Then work toward making that something great and
move on...
I see where you come from, but I think this is a bit different from,
say, our choice to support multiple DLMs through Tooz instead of just
picking ZooKeeper.
I like to say that OpenStack solves the infrastructure provider
problem: what should I install over my datacenter to serve the needs
of all my end users. Some want VMs, some want bare metal, some want a
Docker host, some want a Kubernetes cluster, some want a Mesos
cluster. If we explicitly choose to, say, not support Mesos to only
support Kubernetes users, we are no longer a universal solution for
that infrastructure provider. He may deploy OpenStack but then will
have to tell his end users that they can do everything but Mesos,
and/or deploy a Mesos cluster manually on the side if his users end up
deciding they want one.
So while I agree we should get more opinionated on the
implementation/deployer-side options (weeding out less supported
options/drivers and driving more interoperability), I think we need to
support as many infrastructure use cases as we can.
Happy to talk about that with you next week :)
+1 to the above! Magnum's goal (as also mentioned by Kevin in another
email) is
similar to what Trove and Sahara do. I do not believe it should be
opinionated.
It solves a different set of issues and it sits in the provisioning
plane next
to other services akin.
Totally agree.
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
