Open Stack

On 11/15/2013 05:19 AM, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
> http://docs.heatautoscale.apiary.io/
>
> I've thrown together a rough sketch of the proposed API for
> autoscaling. It's written in API-Blueprint format (which is a simple
> subset of Markdown) and provides schemas for inputs and outputs using
> JSON-Schema. The source document is currently
> at https://github.com/radix/heat/raw/as-api-spike/autoscaling.apibp
>
Apologies if I'm about to re-litigate an old argument, but...

At summit we discussed creating a new endpoint (and new pythonclient)
for autoscaling. Instead I think the autoscaling API could just be added
to the existing heat-api endpoint.

Arguments for just making auto scaling part of heat api include:
* Significantly less development, packaging and deployment configuration
of not creating a heat-autoscaling-api and python-autoscalingclient
* Autoscaling is orchestration (for some definition of orchestration) so
belongs in the orchestration service endpoint
* The autoscaling API includes heat template snippets, so a heat service
is a required dependency for deployers anyway
* End-users are still free to use the autoscaling portion of the heat
API without necessarily being aware of (or directly using) heat
templates and stacks
* It seems acceptable for single endpoints to manage many resources (eg,
the increasingly disparate list of resources available via the neutron API)

Arguments for making a new auto scaling api include:
* Autoscaling is not orchestration (for some narrower definition of
orchestration)
* Autoscaling implementation will be handled by something other than
heat engine (I have assumed the opposite)
(no doubt this list will be added to in this thread)

What do you think?