[openstack-dev] [Nova] v3 API in Icehouse

Joe Gordon joe.gordon0 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 21 21:03:31 UTC 2014


On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> The v3 API effort has been going for a few release cycles now.  As we
> approach the Icehouse release, we are faced with the following question:
> "Is it time to mark v3 stable?"
>
> My opinion is that I think we need to leave v3 marked as experimental
> for Icehouse.
>
> There are a number of reasons for this:
>
> 1) Discussions about the v2 and v3 APIs at the in-person Nova meetup
> last week made me come to the realization that v2 won't be going away
> *any* time soon.  In some cases, users have long term API support
> expectations (perhaps based on experience with EC2).  In the best case,
> we have to get all of the SDKs updated to the new API, and then get to
> the point where everyone is using a new enough version of all of these
> SDKs to use the new API.  I don't think that's going to be quick.

Unless we specifically work with SDKs I don't think they will support
V3 until we mark it as stable. So I think we are in a bit of a chicken
and egg situation.

>
> We really don't want to be in a situation where we're having to force
> any sort of migration to a new API.  The new API should be compelling
> enough that everyone *wants* to migrate to it.  If that's not the case,
> we haven't done our job.
>
> 2) There's actually quite a bit still left on the existing v3 todo list.
>  We have some notes here:
>
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/NovaV3APIDoneCriteria
>
> One thing is nova-network support.  Since nova-network is still not
> deprecated, we certainly can't deprecate the v2 API without nova-network
> support in v3.  We removed it from v3 assuming nova-network would be
> deprecated in time.
>
> Another issue is that we discussed the tasks API as the big new API
> feature we would include in v3.  Unfortunately, it's not going to be
> complete for Icehouse.  It's possible we may have some initial parts
> merged, but it's much smaller scope than what we originally envisioned.
>  Without this, I honestly worry that there's not quite enough compelling
> functionality yet to encourage a lot of people to migrate.
>

Can we get more people to work in tasks and try to get it out in icehouse?

If we want to go back to having only 1 API at a specific release in
the future, what about setting a deadline for ourselves to get v3 out
in Juno no matter what?

> 3) v3 has taken a lot more time and a lot more effort than anyone
> thought.  This makes it even more important that we're not going to need
> a v4 any time soon.  Due to various things still not quite wrapped up,
> I'm just not confident enough that what we have is something we all feel
> is Nova's API of the future.
>
>
> Let's all take some time to reflect on what has happened with v3 so far
> and what it means for how we should move forward.  We can regroup for Juno.
>
> Finally, I would like to thank everyone who has helped with the effort
> so far.  Many hours have been put in to code and reviews for this.  I
> would like to specifically thank Christopher Yeoh for his work here.
> Chris has done an *enormous* amount of work on this and deserves credit
> for it.  He has taken on a task much bigger than anyone anticipated.
> Thanks, Chris!
>
> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list