Open Stack

Thank you all for your responses!

>From my side I can add that our separation is a deliberate step. We
pre-weighed all pros and cons and our final decision was that moving
forward as a new project is the lesser of two evils. Undoubtedly, in the
short term it will be painful, but I believe that in the long run Glare
will win.

Also, I want to say, that Glare was designed as an open project and we want
to build a good community with members from different companies. Glare
suppose to be a backend for Heat (and therefore TripleO), App-Catalog,
Tacker and definitely Nova. In addition we are considering the possibility
of storage Docker containers, which may be useful for Magnum.

Then, I think that comparison between Image API and Artifact API is not
correct. Moreover, in my opinion Image API imposes artificial constraints.
Just imagine that your file system can only store images in JPG format
(more precisely, it could store any data, but it is imperative that all
files must have the extension ".jpg"). Likewise Glance - I can put there
any data, it can be both packages and templates, as well as video from my
holiday. And this interface, though not ideal, may not work for all
services. But those artificial limitations that have been created, do
Glance uncomfortable even for storing images.

On the other hand Glare provides unified interface for all possible binary
data types. If we take the example with filesystem, in Glare's case it
supports all file extensions, folders, history of file changes on your
disk, data validation and conversion, import/export files from different
computers and so on. These features are not presented in Glance and I think
they never will, because of deficiencies in the architecture.

For this reason I think Glare's adoption is important and it will be a huge
step forward for OpenStack and the whole community.

Thanks again! If you want to support us, please vote for our talk on
Barcelona summit -
https://www.openstack.org/summit/barcelona-2016/vote-for-speakers/ Search
"Glare" and there will be our presentation.

Best,
Mike

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Jonathan D. Proulx <jon at csail.mit.edu>
wrote:

>
> I don't have a strong opinion on the split vs stay discussion. It
> does seem there's been sustained if ineffective attempts to keep this
> together so I lean toward supporting the divorce.
>
> But let's not pretend there are no costs for this.
>
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 07:02:48PM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
> :On 08/04/2016 06:40 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>
> :>But, if I look at this from a user perspective, if I do want to use
> :>anything other than images as cloud artifacts, the story is pretty
> :>confusing.
> :
> :Actually, I beg to differ. A unified OpenStack Artifacts API,
> :long-term, will be more user-friendly and less confusing since a
> :single API can be used for various kinds of similar artifacts --
> :images, Heat templates, Tosca flows, Murano app manifests, maybe
> :Solum things, maybe eventually Nova flavor-like things, etc.
>
> The confusion is the current state of two API's, not having a future
> integrated API.
>
> Remember how well that served us with nova-network and neutron (né
> quantum).
>
> I also agree with Tim's point.  Yes if a new project is fully
> documented and integrated well into packaging and config management
> implementing it is trivial, but history again teaches this is a long
> road.
>
> It also means extra dev overhead to create and mange these
> supporting structures to hide the complexity from end users. Now if
> the two project are sufficiently different this may not be a
> significant delta as the new docs and config management code would be
> need in the old project if the new service stayed stayed there.
>
> -Jon
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 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/20160805/7613a039/attachment.html>