On Feb 18, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: I think your points are all valid, Jorge. Not disagreeing with them; more just outlining that while saying all services must *publish* a REST interface, services can listen and respond on more than one protocol.
I'm glad we're *mostly* in agreement :-) So, I agree with you basically, just pointing out that while having a REST interface is a good standard, it shouldn't be the *only* way that services can communicate with each other :) Again, I'm not saying it's the *only* way services should communicate with one another especially if there exist protocols that make no sense replicating in REST. That said, I don't like the idea of having to maintain different protocols otherwise. I'm not convinced that doing so is necessary, it muddies the water on what exactly the true service interface is, it keeps us from consuming the same dog food we're selling, and I'm afraid it may lead to added work for service teams. -jay On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jorge Williams <jorge.willi...@rackspace.com<mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> wrote: On Feb 18, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: Hi Jorge! Thanks for the detailed response. Comments inline. :) On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Jorge Williams <jorge.willi...@rackspace.com<mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> wrote: There are lots of advantages: 1) It allows services to be more autonomous, and gives us clearly defined service boundaries. Each service can be treated as a black box. Agreed. 2) All service communication becomes versioned, not just the public API but also the admin API. This means looser coupling which can help us work in parallel. So glance can be on 1.2 of their API, but another API that depends on it (say compute) can continue to consume 1.1 until they're ready to switch -- we don't have the bottlenecks of everyone having to update everything together. Agreed. 3) Also because things are loosely coupled and there are clearly defined boundaries it positions us to have many other services (LBaaS, FWaaS, DBaaS, DNSaaS, etc). Agreed. 4) It also becomes easier to deploy a subset of functionality ( you want compute and image, but not block). Agreed. 5) Interested developers can get involved in only the services that they care about without worrying about other services. Not quite sure how this has to do with REST vs. AMQP... AMQP is simply the communication protocol between internal Nova services (network, compute, and volume) right now. Developers can currently get involved in the services they want to without messing with the other services. I'm saying we can even package/deploy/run each service separately. I supposed you can also do this with AMQP, I just see less roadblocks to doing this with HTTP. So for example, AMQP requires a message bus which is external to the service. That affects autonomy. With an HTTP/REST approach, I can simply talk to the service directly. I suppose things could be a little different if had a queuing service. But even then, do we really want all of our messages to go to the queue service first? 6) We already have 3 APIs (nova, swift, glance), we need to do this kind of integration as it is, it makes sense for us to standardize on it. Unless I'm mistaken, we're not talking about APIs. We're talking about protocols. AMQP vs. HTTP. What we call APIs are really protocols, so the OpenStack compute API is really a protocol for talking to compute. Keep in mind we intimately use HTTP in our restful protocol...content negotiation, headers, status codes, etc... all of these are part of the API. Another thing I should note, is that I see benefits in keeping the interface to service same regardless of whether it's a user or another service that's making a call. This allows us to eat our own dog food. That is, there's no separate protocol for developers than there is for clients. Sure there may be an Admin API, but the difference between the Admin API and the Public API is really defined in terms of security policies by the operator. We are certainly changing the way we are doing things, but I don't really think we are throwing away a lot of functionality. As PVO mentioned, things should work very similar to the way they are working now. You still have compute workers, you may still have an internal queue, the only difference is that cross-service communication is now happening by issuing REST calls. I guess I'm on the fence with this one. I agree that: * Having clear boundaries between services is A Good Thing * Having versioning in the interfaces between services is A Good Thing I'm just not convinced that services shouldn't be able to communicate on different protocols. REST over HTTP is a fine interface. Serialized messages over AMQP is similarly a fine interface. I don't think we're saying you can't use any protocol besides HTTP. If it makes sense to use something like AMQP **within your service boundary** use it. One of the nice things about services being autonomous and loosely coupled is that you have a lot of freedom within your black box. So if you want to use AMQP to talk to your compute nodes within your boundary go for it. I do think we need to standardize communication *between services* and standardizing on REST is not a bad choice. We learned this lesson the hard way at Rackspace. Today we have services that use REST, RMI, XML-RPC, and SOAP. Because there's a lot of diversity in the protocols we have services that expose multiple protocols to different clients (say RMI and SOAP), often a feature will make it to one protocol but never gets exposed in the other. Having to support multiple protocols adds a lot of extra work for the service team and for the teams like the control panel team that needs to integrate with all sorts of services in all sorts of ways. We've come to the conclusion that supporting a single protocol is a good thing, and that HTTP/REST is not a bad choice. Now there are cases where it does make sense to expose a protocol other than HTTP/REST -- and that is when there's a native de-facto protocol with ubiquitous client support. So for example, if we created a mail service, does it really make sense for us to redefine IMAP in REST -- I think not :-) Same thing for protocols like iSCSI, etc. The standardization should occur at the *message* level, not the *protocol* level. REST over HTTP, combined with the Atom Publishing Protocol, has those messages already defined. Having standard message definitions that are sent via AMQP seems to me to be the "missing link" in the standardization process. You're argument that the messages should be standardized but that we should be transport protocol independent is essentially what lead to the development of SOAP. Today you could do: 1) SOAP over HTTP 2) SOAP over AMQP 3) SOAP over SMTP 4) SOAP over TCP...etc And it works as you proposed, the messages are standardized, the transport protocol doesn't matter. Unfortunately a side effect of this is that stuff that would otherwise be handled by the protocol ends up filtering its way up to the definition of the messages. This adds a lot of complexity and it prevents clients and service providers from taking advantages of the underlying features of the protocol. I'd say let's standardize on REST and take advantage of all of the stuff HTTP has to offer (proxying, caching, SSL, client support, etc...). -jOrGe W.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
