[openstack-dev] [all] Proposal for having a service type registry and curated OpenStack REST API

Monty Taylor mordred at inaugust.com
Mon Feb 8 01:13:47 UTC 2016

On 02/07/2016 07:30 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 02/04/2016 06:38 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> What options do we have?
> <snip>
>> 2) Have a registry of "common" names.
>> Upside, we can safely use common names everywhere and not fear collision
>> down the road.
>> Downside, yet another contention point.
>> A registry would clearly be under TC administration, though all the
>> heavy lifting might be handed over to the API working group. I still
>> imagine collision around some areas might be contentious.
> The above is my choice. I'd also like to point out that I'm only talking
> about the *service* projects here -- i.e. the things that expose a REST
> API.


> I don't care about a naming registry for non-service projects because
> they do not expose a public user-facing API that needs to be curated and
> protected.


> I would further suggest using the openstack/governance repo's
> projects.yaml file for this registry. This is already under the TC's
> administration and the API WG could be asked to work closely with the TC
> to make recommendations on naming for all type:service projects in the
> file. We should add a service:$type tag to the projects.yaml file and
> that would serve as the registry for REST API services.
> We would need to institute this system by first tackling the current
> areas of REST API functional overlap:
> * Ceilometer and Monasca are both type:service projects that are both
> performing telemetry functionality in their REST APIs. The API WG should
> work with both communities to come up with a 6-12 month plan for
> creating a *single* OpenStack Telemetry REST API that both communities
> would be able to implement separately as they see fit.
> * All APIs that the OpenStack Compute API currently proxies to other
> service endpoints need to have a formal sunsetting plan. This includes:
>   - servers/{server_id}/os-interface (port interfaces)
>   - images/
>   - images/{image_id}/metadata
>   - os-assisted-volume-snapshots/
>   - servers/{server_id}/os-bare-metal-nodes/ (BTW, why is this a
> sub-resource of /servers again?)
>   - os-fixed-ips/
>   - os-floating-ip-dns/
>   - os-floating-ip-pools/
>   - os-floating-ips/
>   - os-floating-ips-bulk/
>   - os-networks/
>   - os-security-groups/
>   - os-security-group-rules/
>   - os-security-group-default-rules/
>   - os-tenant-networks/
>   - os-volumes/
>   - os-snapshots/
> * All those services that have overlapping top-level resources must have
> a plan to either:
>   - align/consolidate the top-level resource if it makes sense
>   - rename the top-level resource to be more specific if needed, or
>   - place the top-level resource as a sub-resource on a top-level
> resource that is unique in the full OpenStack REST API set of top-level
> resources

Yes please god yes oh yes a million times yes. I've never agreed with 
you as much as this since the JSON/XML glory of the Cactus summit.

I know shade is not the OpenStack SDK - but as a library that has a top 
level "OpenStackCloud" object that has methods like "list_servers" and 
"list_images" - things that overlap in conceptual name but do not 
present the same semantics quickly become difficult. I believe Jay's 
proposal above will help to make the situation much more saner.


/me sends jaypipes a fruit basket

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list