Open Stack

On  April 14, 2017 1:23 PM Jay Pipes wrote:

On 04/12/2017 02:15 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 04/12/2017 01:38 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> On 04/12/2017 11:21 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>>> Just a question, not meant as anything bad against shade,
>>>
>>> But would effort be better spent on openstacksdk?
>>
>> tl;dr - great in practice, falls apart in the details
>>
>> I don't think so - but it was an original thought, so it's certainly 
>> a reasonable question.
>>
>> openstacksdk is an SDK exposing the OpenStack APIs. It does not hide 
>> differences between APIs, nor abstract into different concepts. shade 
>> does. So I think they have different audiences and different intends 
>> in mind.
>>
>>> Take the good parts of shade and just move it to openstacksdk, 
>>> perhaps as a 'higher level api' available in openstacksdk?
>>>
>>> Then ansible openstack components (which I believe use shade) could 
>>> then switch to openstacksdk and all will be merry...
>>
>> The thing is - for shade's needs, openstacksdk is both too much and 
>> not enough simultaneously. (this is not intended to be a dig against 
>> sdk - their goal in life is not to be a rest layer for shade, it's to 
>> be an SDK for the OpenStack APIs)
>>
>> To handle nodepool scale, shade needs to do some really specific 
>> things related to exactly when and how remote interactions happen. In 
>> services of its users, openstacksdk hides those interactions - which 
>> I think is a nice feature for its users, but unfortunately removes 
>> shade's ability to control those interactions in the way it needs to.
>>
>> At the same time, the object model wrapper with magic generators and 
>> whatnot doesn't add much value to shade past "get('/servers').json()" 
>> to be quite honest.
>>
>> So - I think handling our needs would be very annoying to the SDK 
>> folks, and it would just unnecessarily make things complex for both sides.
>>
>> In any case, like I said, it's a completely fair and legit question - 
>> but as of right now I don't think it would actually make anyone's 
>> lives better.
>
> Just to provide a different though related perspective.
>
> This is what success looks like. Lots of different people writing 
> different stuff, in different ways, talking to your API (which is the 
> REST API, not a library). Everyone implementing the slices that are 
> important for their consumers, and providing the fidelity that their 
> consumers need.
>
> We should never think this is a bad thing.

   Well, sure, I don't think it's a bad thing that there are multiple clients to our REST API.

   But I *do* think it's a bad thing that shade needs to exist to smooth out all the rough edges, inconsistencies, implementation leaks and flat-out silliness that our REST API has.

++
--Rocky


   Best,
   -jay

__________________________________________________________________________
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