[openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

Ian Cordasco sigmavirus24 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 18 23:20:35 UTC 2016

-----Original Message-----
From: Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com>
Reply: Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com>, OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Date: February 18, 2016 at 10:10:18
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] "No Open Core" in 2016

> On 16/02/16 19:17 +0000, Sean M. Collins wrote:
> >That is certainly a problem. However I think I would lean on Sean
> >Dague's argument about how Neutron had an open source solution that
> >needed a lot of TLC. The point being that at least they had 1 option.
> >Not zero options.
> >
> >And Dean's point about gce and aws API translation into OpenStack
> >Compute is also very relevant. We have precedence for doing API
> >translation layers that take some foreign API and translate it into
> >"openstackanese"
> >
> >I think Poppy would have a lot easier time getting into OpenStack were
> >it to take the steps to build a back-end that would do the required
> >operations to create a CDN - using a multi-region OpenStack cloud. Or
> >even adopting an open source CDN. Something! Anything really!
> >
> >Yes, it's a lot of work, but without that, as I think others have
> >stated - where's the OpenStack part?
> That's not Poppy's business, fwiw. We can't ask a provisioning project to also
> be in the business of providing a data API. As others have mentioned, it's just
> unfortunate that there's no open source solution for CDNs. TBH, I'd rather have
> Poppy not running functional tests (because this is basically what this
> discussion is coming down to) than having the team working on a
> half-implemented, kinda CDN hack just to make the CI happy.
> If someone wants to work on a CDN service, fine. That sounds awesome but let's
> not push the Poppy team down that road. They have a clear goal and mission.
> OpenStack's requirements are a bit too narrow for them.
> That said, as Monty mentioned in the TC meeting, deploying CDN's is not
> necessary something a cloud wants to do. Providing a service that provisions
> CDN's is more likely to be used by a cloud provider.

I've been sitting on the fence for a while now in this discussion but I'd have to say that this point of view has swayed me towards being in favor of including Poppy in OpenStack.

I understand the arguments against this, but I think in spite of the weak similarities being drawn with other projects (e.g., Cinder having F/OSS drivers) I think we have to also recognize a difference in the problem domains. Presently, I think we need a F/OSS CDN but it isn't going to happen until the infrastructure for a CDN is something any OpenStack consumer would want to manage.

If anything, a consumer of OpenStack would probably like the freedom that poppy will provide in being able to swap out existing CDN providers while consuming the same API.

But that's just my two cents as a non-TC community member.
Ian Cordasco

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list