Open Stack

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Arnaud Legendre <alegendre at vmware.com>
wrote:

>  Hi Denis,
>
>  I think this is a perfect time for you to review the spec for the glance
> metadata catalog https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98554/ and see if it
> fits your use case.
> Also, we have a session tomorrow at 9:00am PST at the Glance meetup to
> discuss this topic. I think it would be useful if you could join (in person
> or remotely). Please see the details:
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Glance/JunoCycleMeetup
>
> I will try to take part in, unfortunately remotely. Also, i'm reviewing
metadata spec right now. If there would be some kind of a gap or missing
abilities - i would leave comments. But for the cursory glance - it looks
exactly what we need, except our own(Trove) specific things.

Thanks,
Denis M.


>  Thank you,
> Arnaud
>
>  On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:32 AM, Denis Makogon <dmakogon at mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>   Hello, Stackers.
>
>      I’d like to discuss the future of Trove metadata API. But first small
> history info (mostly taken for Trove medata spec, see [1]):
>  Instance metadata is a feature that has been requested frequently by our
> users. They need a way to store critical information for their instances
> and have that be associated with the instance so that it is displayed
> whenever that instance is listed via the API. This also becomes very usable
> from a testing perspective when doing integration/ci. We can utilize the
> metadata to store things like what process created the instance, what the
> instance is being used for, etc... The design for this feature is modeled
> heavily on the Nova metadata API with a few tweaks in how it works
> internally.
>
>      And here comes conflict. Glance devs are working on “Glance Metadata
> Catalog” feature (see [2]). And as for me, we don’t have to “reinvent the
> wheel” for Trove. It seems that we would be able
>  to use Glance API to interact with   Metadata Catalog. And it seems to
> be redundant to write our own API for metadata CRUD operations.
>
>
>      From Trove perspective, we need to define a list concrete use cases
> for metadata usage (eg given goals at [1] are out of scope of Database
> program, etc.).
>  From development and cross-project integration perspective, we need to
> delegate all development to Glance devs. But we still able to help Glance
> devs with this feature by taking active part in polishing proposed spec
> (see [2]).
>
>
>      Unfortunately, we’re(Trove devs) are on half way to metadata - patch
> for python-troveclient already merged. So, we need to consider
> deprecation/reverting of merged and block
>  merging of proposed ( see [3]) patchsets in favor of Glance Metadata
> Catalog.
>
>
>     Thoughts?
>
>  [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Trove-Instance-Metadata
>  [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98554/11
>  [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/82123/
>
>
>  Best regards,
>  Denis Makogon
>  _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140724/19064cd7/attachment.html>