Open Stack

On 28 September 2015 at 12:35, Sylvain Bauza <sbauza at redhat.com> wrote:

> About the maintenance burden, I also consider that patching clients is far
> more easier than patching an API unless I missed something.
>
>
I think I very much disagree there - patching a central installation is
much, much easier than getting N customers to patch M different libraries,
even assuming the fix is available for any significant subset of the M
libraries, plus making sure that new customers use the correct libraries,
plus helping any customers who have some sort of roll-your-own library do
the new right thing...

I think there's a definite place for a simple API to do infrastructure
level orchestration without needing the complexities of heat - these APIs
are in nova because they're useful - there's clear operator desire for them
and a couple of operators have been quite vocal about their desire for them
not to be removed. Great, let's keep them, but form a team of people
interested in getting them right (get rid of fixed timeouts, etc), add any
missing pieces (like floating IPs for new VMs) and generally focus on
getting this piece of the puzzle right. Breaking another small piece off
nova and polishing it has been a generally successful pattern.

I remember Monty Taylor (copied) having a rant about the lack of the
perfect 'give me a VM with all its stuff sorted' API. Care to comment,
Monty?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150928/c7951d81/attachment.html>