[openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified abstraction for all COEs

Hongbin Lu hongbin.lu at huawei.com
Thu Apr 21 15:38:29 UTC 2016

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Otto [mailto:adrian.otto at rackspace.com]
> Sent: April-21-16 10:32 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum][app-catalog][all] Build unified
> abstraction for all COEs
> > On Apr 20, 2016, at 2:49 PM, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at fastmail.com>
> 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…
> The key issue preventing the selection of only one COE is that this
> area is moving very quickly. If we would have decided what to pick at
> the time the Magnum idea was created, we would have selected Docker. If
> you look at it today, you might pick something else. A few months down
> the road, there may be yet another choice that is more compelling. The
> fact that a cloud operator can integrate services with OpenStack, and
> have the freedom to offer support for a selection of COE’s is a form of
> insurance against the risk of picking the wrong one. Our compute
> service offers a choice of hypervisors, our block storage service
> offers a choice of storage hardware drivers, our networking service
> allows a choice of network drivers. Magnum is following the same
> pattern of choice that has made OpenStack compelling for a very diverse
> community. That design consideration was intentional.
> Over time, we can focus the majority of our effort on deep integration
> with COEs that users select the most. I’m convinced it’s still too
> early to bet the farm on just one choice.

If Magnum want to avoid the risk of picking the wrong COE, that mean the risk is populated to all our users. They might pick a COE and explore the its complexities. Then they find out another COE is more compelling and their integration work is wasted. I wonder if we can do better by taking the risk and provide insurance for our users? I am trying to understand the rationales that prevents us to improve the integration between COEs and OpenStack. Personally, I don't like to end up with a situation that "this is the pain from our users, but we cannot do anything".

> Adrian
> >> I'm with Adrian on that one. I've attended a lot of
> >> container-oriented conferences over the past year and my main
> >> takeaway is that this new crowd of potential users is not interested
> >> (at all) in an OpenStack-specific lowest common denominator API for
> >> COEs. They want to take advantage of the cool features in Kubernetes
> >> API or the versatility of Mesos. They want to avoid caring about the
> >> infrastructure provider bit (and not deploy Mesos or Kubernetes
> themselves).
> >>
> >> Let's focus on the infrastructure provider bit -- that is what we do
> >> and what the ecosystem wants us to provide.
> >>
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> > OpenStack-dev-request at 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-
> request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list