Open Stack

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/11/2013 11:47 PM, Mike Perez wrote:
>
>> On 10:06 Thu 12 Dec     , Christopher Yeoh wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Doug Hellmann
>>> <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com
>>> <mailto:doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Ryan Petrello <
>>>>> ryan.petrello at dreamhost.com
>>>>> <mailto:ryan.petrello at dreamhost.com>>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>  Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve spent the past week experimenting with using Pecan for
>>>>> Nova’s
>>>>>
>>>> API
>>
>>> and have opened an experimental review:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61303/6
>>>>>
>>>>> …which implements the `versions` v3 endpoint using pecan (and
>>>>>
>>>> paves the
>>
>>> way for other extensions to use pecan).  This is a *potential*
>>>>>
>>>>>  approach
>>
>>> I've considered for gradually moving the V3 API, but I’m open
>>>>> to other suggestions (and feedback on this approach).  I’ve
>>>>> also got a few open questions/general observations:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.  It looks like the Nova v3 API is composed *entirely* of
>>>>> extensions (including “core” API calls), and that extensions
>>>>> and their routes are discoverable and extensible via installed
>>>>> software that registers
>>>>>
>>>> itself
>>
>>> via stevedore.  This seems to lead to an API that’s composed of
>>>>>
>>>>>  installed
>>
>>> software, which in my opinion, makes it fairly hard to map out
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>> API (as
>>
>>> opposed to how routes are manually defined in other WSGI
>>>>>
>>>> frameworks).  I
>>
>>> assume at this time, this design decision has already been
>>>>>
>>>> solidified for
>>
>>> v3?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I brought this up at the summit. I am still having some
>>>> trouble understanding how we are going to express a stable core
>>>> API for compatibility testing if the behavior of the API can be
>>>> varied so significantly by deployment decisions. Will we just
>>>> list each
>>>>
>>> "required"
>>
>>> extension, and forbid any extras for a compliant cloud?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  Maybe the issue is caused by me misunderstanding the term
>>>> "extension," which (to me) implies an optional component but is
>>>> perhaps reflecting a technical implementation detail instead?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Yes and no :-) As Ryan mentions, all API code is a plugin in the V3
>>> API. However, some must be loaded or the V3 API refuses to start
>>> up. In nova/api/openstack/__init__.py we have
>>> API_V3_CORE_EXTENSIONS which hard codes which extensions must be
>>> loaded and there is no config option to override this (blacklisting
>>> a core plugin will result in the V3 API not starting up).
>>>
>>> So for compatibility testing I think what will probably happen is
>>> that we'll be defining a minimum set (API_V3_CORE_EXTENSIONS) that
>>> must be implemented and clients can rely on that always being
>>>
>> present
>>
>>> on a compliant cloud. But clients can also then query through
>>> /extensions what other functionality (which is backwards compatible
>>> with respect to core) may also be present on that specific cloud.
>>>
>>
>> This really seems similar to the idea of having a router class, some
>> controllers and you map them. From my observation at the summit,
>> calling everything an extension creates confusion. An extension
>> "extends" something. For example, Chrome has extensions, and they
>> extend the idea of the core features of a browser. If you want to do
>> more than back/forward, go to an address, stop, etc, that's an
>> extension. If you want it to play an audio clip "stop, hammer time"
>> after clicking the stop button, that's an example of an extension.
>>
>> In OpenStack, we use extensions to extend core. Core are the
>> essential feature(s) of the project. In Cinder for example, core is
>> volume. In core you can create a volume, delete a volume, attach a
>> volume, detach a volume, etc. If you want to go beyond that, that's
>> an extension. If you want to do volume encryption, that's an example
>> of an extension.
>>
>> I'm worried by the discrepancies this will create among the programs.
>> You mentioned maintainability being a plus for this. I don't think
>> it'll be great from the deployers perspective when you have one
>> program that thinks everything is an extension and some of them have
>> to be enabled that the deployer has to be mindful of, while the rest
>> of the programs consider all extensions to be optional.
>>
>
> +1. I agree with most of what Mike says above. The idea that there are
> core "extensions" in Nova's v3 API doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
>
>
So would it help if we used the term "plugin" to talk about the framework
that the API is implemented with,
and extensions when talking about things which extend the core API? So the
whole of the API is implemented
using plugins, while the core plugins are not considered to be extensions.

Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131213/0324df79/attachment.html>