[openstack-dev] [nova][api] Microversions. And why do we need API extensions for new API functionality?

Jay Pipes jaypipes at gmail.com
Tue Mar 24 14:10:07 UTC 2015

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 01:04:46PM +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2015-03-23 21:31:30 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:35:50PM +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > > On 2015-03-23 15:15:18 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > I don't want it suppressed. I want the use of API extensions and the
> > > > extension framework(s) to be completely dropped for all future
> > > > API-affecting work.
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > Perhaps controversial, but would it be worthwhile to propose to the
> > > Defcore working group that future compliance requirements include
> > > the absence of extensions to officially covered APIs?
> > 
> > I don't understand what you're getting at, Jeremy. Could you elaborate?
> > 
> > What do extensions have to do with future compliance requirements?
> Defcore's focus is on establishing interoperability standards for
> OpenStack deployments, to ease the end-user experience. Right now
> its model depends on a whitelist of API features. As discussed many
> times before and brought up again in this thread, when providers or
> distributors "augment" OpenStack APIs to add their own special
> features without implementing them upstream, this necessarily
> creates interoperability issues.

Defcore's focus is on determining what "is OpenStack", w.r.t. what is
brandable as OpenStack. It's focus is not on establishing interoperability

> What I'm suggesting is that Defcore should not just specify which
> API features need to be supported, but also specify that nonstandard
> API features must not be added to the APIs its covering.

We're perilously close to re-igniting the "is OpenStack a set of APIs,
or is OpenStack a set of implementations of those APIs" debate. A debate
I'm happy to have, of course :)

I'm really not a fan of the Defcore effort. This should come as no
surprise to anyone. I've been quite blunt about my disdain for the focus
on identifying which API things are mandatory and which are optional, in
order to say some vendor's product "is OpenStack".

That said, I'm not going to get in its way. If you think that Defcore
should amend its compliancy guidelines to include the above, fine by me.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list