Ian, I value your input, but concern still stands. Amazon's compute API moves slowly in comparison to Docker registry's API. Making a parity implementation to the Docker v2 registry API is a complex and difficult challenge. It is much more significant then simply making an API. An implementation needs to stand behind that API.
Regards -steve From: Ian Cordasco <sigmaviru...@gmail.com<mailto:sigmaviru...@gmail.com>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Date: Saturday, August 6, 2016 at 4:52 AM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][TC][Heat][App-Catalog][Murano][Tacker] Glare as a new Project However, interested parties could start a project like the ec2 project that is independently released and provides that compatibility using glare On Aug 6, 2016 5:18 AM, "Steven Dake (stdake)" <std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>> wrote: Kevin, Agree it would be a very useful feature, however, easier said then done. Part of Docker's approach is to "move fast";they schedule releases every 2 months. I'm sure the glare team is quite competent, however, keeping API parity on such a fast moving project such as the docker registry API is a big objective not to be undertaken lightly. If there isn't complete API parity with the docker rregistry v2 API, the work wouldn't be particularly useful to many in the container communities inside OpenStack as Hongbin pointed out. Regards -steve From: "Fox, Kevin M" <kevin....@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin....@pnnl.gov>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Date: Friday, August 5, 2016 at 2:29 PM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][TC][Heat][App-Catalog][Murano][Tacker] Glare as a new Project If glare was docker repo api compatible though, I think it would be quite useful. then each tenant doesn't have to set one up themselves. Thanks, Kevin ________________________________ From: Hongbin Lu [hongbin...@huawei.com<mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com>] Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 1:29 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][TC][Heat][App-Catalog][Murano][Tacker] Glare as a new Project Replied inline. From: Mikhail Fedosin [mailto:mfedo...@mirantis.com] Sent: August-05-16 2:10 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][TC][Heat][App-Catalog][Murano][Tacker] Glare as a new Project Thank you all for your responses! >From my side I can add that our separation is a deliberate step. We >pre-weighed all pros and cons and our final decision was that moving forward >as a new project is the lesser of two evils. Undoubtedly, in the short term it >will be painful, but I believe that in the long run Glare will win. Also, I want to say, that Glare was designed as an open project and we want to build a good community with members from different companies. Glare suppose to be a backend for Heat (and therefore TripleO), App-Catalog, Tacker and definitely Nova. In addition we are considering the possibility of storage Docker containers, which may be useful for Magnum. [Hongbin Lu] Magnum doesn’t have any plan to store docker images at Glare, because COE (i.e. Kubernetes) is simply incompatible with any API other than docker registry. Zun might have use cases to store docker images at Glare if Glare is part of Glance, but I am reluctant to set a dependency on Glare if Glare is a totally branch new service. Then, I think that comparison between Image API and Artifact API is not correct. Moreover, in my opinion Image API imposes artificial constraints. Just imagine that your file system can only store images in JPG format (more precisely, it could store any data, but it is imperative that all files must have the extension ".jpg"). Likewise Glance - I can put there any data, it can be both packages and templates, as well as video from my holiday. And this interface, though not ideal, may not work for all services. But those artificial limitations that have been created, do Glance uncomfortable even for storing images. On the other hand Glare provides unified interface for all possible binary data types. If we take the example with filesystem, in Glare's case it supports all file extensions, folders, history of file changes on your disk, data validation and conversion, import/export files from different computers and so on. These features are not presented in Glance and I think they never will, because of deficiencies in the architecture. For this reason I think Glare's adoption is important and it will be a huge step forward for OpenStack and the whole community. Thanks again! If you want to support us, please vote for our talk on Barcelona summit - https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/vote-for-speakers/ Search "Glare" and there will be our presentation. Best, Mike On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan D. Proulx <j...@csail.mit.edu<mailto:j...@csail.mit.edu>> wrote: I don't have a strong opinion on the split vs stay discussion. It does seem there's been sustained if ineffective attempts to keep this together so I lean toward supporting the divorce. But let's not pretend there are no costs for this. On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 07:02:48PM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote: :On 08/04/2016 06:40 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: :>But, if I look at this from a user perspective, if I do want to use :>anything other than images as cloud artifacts, the story is pretty :>confusing. : :Actually, I beg to differ. A unified OpenStack Artifacts API, :long-term, will be more user-friendly and less confusing since a :single API can be used for various kinds of similar artifacts -- :images, Heat templates, Tosca flows, Murano app manifests, maybe :Solum things, maybe eventually Nova flavor-like things, etc. The confusion is the current state of two API's, not having a future integrated API. Remember how well that served us with nova-network and neutron (né quantum). I also agree with Tim's point. Yes if a new project is fully documented and integrated well into packaging and config management implementing it is trivial, but history again teaches this is a long road. It also means extra dev overhead to create and mange these supporting structures to hide the complexity from end users. Now if the two project are sufficiently different this may not be a significant delta as the new docs and config management code would be need in the old project if the new service stayed stayed there. -Jon __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
