Open Stack

The point was, a lot of folks define OpenStack App in a way that has 0 requirement for talking to OpenStack api's. Really its about deployment on top of OpenStack, using OpenStack provided resources, such as Heat templates. So, more akin to software packaging then software api usage. Two totally different sets of folks. Some developers can write distro packages. Some packagers can write software. But usually they are disjoint sets.

I get what your are trying to provide. Its a noble goal and very important.

I'm just saying, the term is overloaded enough, and the:
"App Ecosystem WG" is squatting on the general term "app", the tag '[app]', etc, which is way more then what the WG is trying to scope itself to.

So, if you want to down scope, maybe the workgroup should be renamed:
"App Integration Ecosystem WG" [app-int] or something to be less confusing. To allow other WG's that may want to focus on the other problem to come along and solve their piece.

The title right now seems to imply that its about something very different then it is.

Thanks,
Kevin

________________________________
From: Michael Krotscheck [krotscheck at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 11:19 AM
To: user-committee
Subject: Re: [User-committee] [app] What is an App?

Let me try to clarify:

I'm proposing that the App Ecosystem WG does not try to define the meaning of "App" at all. The term is too generic, anyone can overload it to mean what they want. Case and point: You (the App Catalog) already have a definition.

We need to sidestep this argument altogether, and focus instead on what an "app" uses. We will train and support you on how to talk to the OpenStack API's. In many cases, we'll be able to refer you to existing tools and/or SDK's (such as Ansible and/or python-openstacksdk) that have already solved 80% of your problem. For anything else, we'll happily refer you to the correct community.

Does that provide the necessary context?

Michael

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov<mailto:Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov>> wrote:
I've worked for the OpenStack Applications Catalog project for a while, and we've been using a definition of OpenStack Application closer to "Is it an app deployed on OpenStack instances". For a long time now.

There is software, and there are Apps. "Apps" got redefined in most peoples minds when mobile world hit.

Software is something that is hard to install. The installer asks a lot of questions, it needs to be tuned, etc.

An App, is something my grandmother or young child can deploy and use with a click or two. Thats something OpenStack needs more of.

If you go ask random person on the street what an App was, I'd be willing to bet you would get a definition that is similar the mobile one. "I go to the store/catalog/market, search, click install, and then go to "run" and start working/playing".

So I disagree with the definition you laid out as a general term. It is unintuitive in that form. I'd suggest any tagging sorts of endeavours use a different or more specific term like OpenStack API Application or something.

As for what the App Ecosystem WG wants to focus on, I think its great to focus on getting software talking to OpenStack via apis.  No issue there. I just want to make sure that we don't cause further confusion with multiple projects using the same term drastically differently. Its something users have suffered a lot with already.

Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________
From: Michael Krotscheck [krotscheck at gmail.com<mailto:krotscheck at gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:16 AM
To: user-committee
Subject: [User-committee] [app] What is an App?

As asked 2 meetings ago (and then totally forgotten until I was reminded last week), I wrote down my thoughts on the purpose on the App Ecosystem WG, as well as how I believe an "App" should be defined. I'd like to open the following for discussion, as an update to the mission statement of the App Ecosystem WG. We'll also discuss it on the phone on Monday.

=====================
TL/DR:
- "To create an ecosystem where a diverse array of applications built for OpenStack can thrive."
- "An OpenStack App is a software project that relies on an OpenStack SDK."

Our purpose is to create an ecosystem where a diverse array of applications built for OpenStack can thrive.

A simple statement, which leaves too much undefined. What exactly is an OpenStack App? Is it a deployment tool? Is it a web UI? Is it an app deployed on OpenStack instances? Is it a cron job? Who is the user? Is it a Heat template? Which cloud are they using? Has that cloud been customized?

As the App Ecosystem Working Group, we believe that the common, defining element of an "OpenStack App" is not whether it is deployed on OpenStack, but whether it relies on direct access to the OpenStack API's. For example, we consider Ansible to be an OpenStack app, as its OpenStack cloud core modules rely on shade's API implementations.

A more nuanced example is that of Pantheon. Their wordpress/django provisioning may be considered an OpenStack app, if they use the magnum API to provision their customers' requested instances. Wordpress, however, would not be, as it is unaware of its compute environment.

We in the App Ecosystem WG cannot, and should not, predict what our users want to do with OpenStack; the best we can do is provide the tools and training they need to meet their own business objectives. Tools means SDK's. Training means tutorials, classes, and sample projects.

"An OpenStack App is a software project that is built on an OpenStack SDK."

What is an SDK? It is a set of tools, in a specific language, that are easy to use for an engineer working in that language. More importantly, it supports applications that are built with OpenStack in mind, but _outside_ of the CLA walled garden. An SDK should make an effort to adhere to the tooling and conventions common in the community it is trying to serve.

Furthermore, SDK's often define usage patterns. Some might be focused on building User Interfaces, others may be focused on CLI and automation tooling, yet more are there for API's and business logic. Usage patterns vary greatly, and it is worth neither the time nor the effort to provide exhaustive support for every potential use of every API call ever.

Each SDK knows its community; it is not our job to prescribe that community's needs, nor to tell them what that SDK should, or should not, support. If asked, we may certainly help them refine their mission, however providing any form of engineering support, or a one-size-fits-all certification program, is well out of scope (And futile besides).

Training and Tutorials, however, are our responsibility. Since we have very limited resources, we should set some acceptance criteria for FirstApp and Training resources. In this, as in all things Open Source, contribution is the only criteria that matters: Is someone willing to do the work?

=====================
Thoughts? Edits? Add them here: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/app-ecosystem-wg-mission
=====================

I've got a few more thoughts on what I feel makes a good SDK which came out of writing this, but they're not really relevant to the scope of the WG (They're super relevant to my JS SDK work though). Some of the SDK's we train for will live in the Big Tent, others outside it, yet ultimately they're all outside of our control. My criteria break down as follows:

"A Good SDK ..."
- ...meets a software engineer on their own turf.
- ...provides convenience methods for the 80% most common use cases.
- ...provides low-level API access for custom calls.

That's it for me. Let the discussion begin!

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20160622/650effd8/attachment-0001.html>