<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">I second this. We build
web applications for the Foundation that run on
OpenStack instances. By and large, we have no need to touch the
OpenStack API.
However, we rely on OpenStack for our infrastructure. This is, IMO, a
very big potential market and something that we should be sure to
include. If not in this WG, then some other. <br>
<br>
Cheers!<br>
Jimmy <br>
<br>
<br>
<span>Fox, Kevin M wrote:</span><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1A3C52DFCD06494D8528644858247BF01B97DF66@EX10MBOX03.pnnl.gov"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-size: 10pt;">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.<br></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1A3C52DFCD06494D8528644858247BF01B97DF66@EX10MBOX03.pnnl.gov"
type="cite">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<br>
There is software, and there are Apps. "Apps" got redefined in most
peoples minds when mobile world hit.<br>
<br>
Software is something that is hard to install. The installer asks a lot
of questions, it needs to be tuned, etc.<br>
<br>
An App, is something my grandmother or young child can deploy and use
with a click or two. Thats something OpenStack needs more of.<br>
<br>
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".<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Kevin<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size:
16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF950176"><font color="#000000"
face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> Michael Krotscheck
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:krotscheck@gmail.com">krotscheck@gmail.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:16 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> user-committee<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [User-committee] [app] What is an App?<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
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.<br>
<br>
=====================<br>
TL/DR:<br>
- "To create an ecosystem where a diverse array of applications built
for OpenStack can thrive."<br>
- "An OpenStack App is a software project that relies on an OpenStack
SDK."<br>
<div><br>
Our purpose is to create an ecosystem where a diverse array of
applications built for OpenStack can thrive.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>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? <br>
<br>
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. <span style="line-height:1.5">For example, we consider
Ansible to be an</span><span style="line-height:1.5"> OpenStack app, as
its OpenStack cloud core modules rely on shade's API implementations. </span></div>
<div><span style="line-height:1.5"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="line-height:1.5">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 </span><span style="line-height:1.5">is unaware of its
compute environment. </span></div>
<div><br>
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. <br>
<br>
"An OpenStack App is a software project that is built on an OpenStack
SDK." <br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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?<br>
<br>
<div>=====================</div>
Thoughts? Edits? Add them here: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/app-ecosystem-wg-mission"
target="_blank">https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/app-ecosystem-wg-mission</a></div>
<div>=====================</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>"A Good SDK ..." <br>
- ...meets a software engineer on their own turf. <br>
- ...provides convenience methods for the 80% most common use cases. <br>
- ...provides low-level API access for custom calls. <br>
<br>
That's it for me. Let the discussion begin!<br>
<br>
Michael</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
User-committee mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:User-committee@lists.openstack.org">User-committee@lists.openstack.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body></html>