[openstack-dev] [tc][appcat] The future of the App Catalog
clint at fewbar.com
Sat Mar 11 02:20:59 UTC 2017
Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2017-03-10 23:45:06 +0000:
> So, this is the kind of thinking I'm talking about... OpenStack today is
> more then just IaaS in the tent. Trove (DBaaS), Sahara (Hadoop,Spark,etc
> aaS), Zaqar (Messaging aaS) and many more services. But they seem to be
> treated as second class citizens, as they are not "IaaS".
It's not that they're second class citizens. It's that their community
is smaller by count of users, operators, and developers. This should not
come as a surprise, because the lowest common denominator in any user
base will always receive more attention.
> > Why should it strive to be anything except an excellent building block
> for other technologies?
> You misinterpret my statement. I'm in full agreement with you. The
> above services should be excellent building blocks too, but are suffering
> from lack of support from the IaaS layer. They deserve the ability to
> be excellent too, but need support/vision from the greater community
> that hasn't been forthcoming.
You say it like there's some over arching plan to suppress parts of the
community and there's a pack of disgruntled developers who just can't
seem to get OpenStack to work for Trove/Sahara/AppCatalog/etc.
We all have different reasons for contributing in the way we do. Clearly,
not as many people contribute to the Trove story as do the pure VM-on-nova
> I agree with you, we should embrace the container folks and not treat
> them as separate. I think thats critical if we want to allow things
> like Sahara or Trove to really fulfil their potential. This is the path
> towards being an OpenSource AWS competitor, not just for being able to
> request vm's in a cloudy way.
> I think that looks something like:
> OpenStack Advanced Service (trove, sahara, etc) -> Kubernetes ->
> Nova VM or Ironic Bare Metal.
That's a great idea. However, AFAICT, Nova is _not_ standing in Trove,
Sahara, or anyone else's way from doing this. Seriously, try it. I'm sure
it will work. And in so doing, you will undoubtedly run into friction
from the APIs. But unless you can describe that _now_, you have to go try
it and tell us what broke first. And then you can likely submit feature
work to nova/neutron/cinder to make it better. I don't see anything in
the current trajectory of OpenStack that makes this hard. Why not just do
it? The way you ask, it's like you have a team of developers just sitting
around shaving yaks waiting for an important OpenStack development task.
The real question is why aren't Murano, Trove and Sahara in most current
deployments? My guess is that it's because most of our current users
don't feel they need it. Until they do, Trove and Sahara will not be
priorities. If you want them to be priorities _pay somebody to make them
> Not what we have today:
> OpenStack Advanced Service -> Nova VM or Ironic Bare Metal
> due to the focus on the api's of VM's being only for IaaS and not for
> actually running cloud software on.
The above is an unfounded and unsupported claim. What _exactly_ would
you want Nova/Neutron/Cinder's API to do differently to support "cloud
software" better? Why is everyone dodging that question? Name one
specific change and how it would actually be consumed.
I personally think it's just the general frustration that comes at
this stage of maturity of a project. There's a contraction of hype,
lower investment in general, and everyone is suppressing their panic
and trying to reason about what we can do to make it better, but nobody
actually knows. Meanwhile, our users and operators need us to keep
making things better. Some are even _paying us_ to make things better.
> I'm sorry if that sounds a bit confusing. Its hard to
> explain. I can try and elaborate if you want. Zane's
> posting here does help explain it a little: >
Honest, I don't understand the reality that Zane's vision is driving at in
that post. More Zaqar? Why not just do that? What's standing in the way?
> The other alternative is to clearly define OpenStack to be just IaaS,
> and kick all the non IaaS stuff out of the tent. (I do not prefer
> this). It will hurt in the short term but long tern could be better
> for those projects then the current status quo as new opportunities for
> switching base dependencies will present themselves and no longer will
> be hamstrung by those that feel their use case isn't important or think
> that the existing api's are "good enough" to handle the use case.
Why would we kick out perfectly healthy pieces of software that want
to be OpenStack-native? Nobody is saying that IaaS clouds aren't well
complimented by native higher level projects. But in the app catalog
case, there's little consumption, and waning contribution, so it's worth
considering whether its continued maintenance and existence is a drain
on the overall community. Sounds like it is, and we'll probably need to
shut it down, and direct those efforts to liasing with outside projects
and services like Dockerhub, Heroku, Bitnami, etc.
Forgive me if I sound reactive. I just want to remind everyone that this
is a do-ocracy. You can say what you want the vision to be all you want,
you can also ask for a vision, but you can't _really_ change anything
here on the mailing list. You have to write a spec, get it landed, and
do the work. I think you'll be surprised how little resistance you get
if you go ahead and _JFDI_.
More information about the OpenStack-dev