Open Stack

On 04/28/2017 06:07 PM, Adrian Turjak wrote:
>
> This sounds like a fantastic​ path forward as the version in the service
> ​ type is a source​ of frustration in some ways. I personally love the
> version​less discoverability of Keystone as an API model.

++ ... I'll follow up on Monday with an email about consumption of 
version discovery.

> I'm also assuming this is related to this repo here:
> https://github.com/openstack/service-types-authority
 >
> Are there plans to actually fill that repo out and start building the
> full 'official' catalog of service types? Because right now that repo is
> missing many services but appears to actually be a good place to list
> what all the various service types are already in use.

Yes, absolutely. If we can get this particular party moving I'd like to 
use that as a little motivation to chug through and get that repo 
completed. (It's not super hard - but without an answer to what to do 
about the old names, the conversations stall out a bit)

> I know that trying to choose a good new service type for a project is
> hard because finding a list for the ones already in use isn't that easy.
> I was sad to find that repo, although ideal, was lacking.

++ totally agree.

>
> On 29 Apr. 2017 10:26 am, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
>
>     Hey everybody!
>
>     Yay! (I'm sure you're all saying this, given the topic. I'll let you
>     collect yourself from your exuberant celebration)
>
>     == Background ==
>
>     As I'm sure you all know, we've been trying to make some hearway for a
>     while on getting service-types that are registered in the keystone
>     service catalog to be consistent. The reason for this is so that API
>     Consumers can know how to request a service from the catalog. That
>     might
>     sound like a really easy task - but uh-hoh, you'd be so so wrong. :)
>
>     The problem is that we have some services that went down the path of
>     suggesting people register a new service in the catalog with a version
>     appended. This pattern was actually started by nova for the v3 api but
>     which we walked back from - with "computev3". The pattern was picked up
>     by at least cinder (volumev2, volumev3) and mistral (workflowv2) that I
>     am aware of. We're also suggesting in the service-types-authority that
>     manila go by "shared-file-system" instead of "share".
>
>     (Incidentally, this is related to a much larger topic of version
>     discovery, which I will not bore you with in this email, but about
>     which
>     I have a giant pile of words just waiting for you in a little bit. Get
>     excited about that!)
>
>     == Proposed Solution ==
>
>     As a follow up to the consuming version discovery spec, which you
>     should
>     absolutely run away from and never read, I wrote these:
>
>     https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460654/ (Consuming historical aliases)
>     and
>     https://review.openstack.org/#/c/460539/ (Listing historical aliases)
>
>     It's not a particularly clever proposal - but it breaks down like this:
>
>     * Make a list of the known historical aliases we're aware of - in a
>     place that isn't just in one of our python libraries (460539)
>     * Write down a process for using them as part of finding a service from
>     the catalog so that there is a clear method that can be implemented by
>     anyone doing libraries or REST interactions. (460654)
>     * Get agreement on that process as the "recommended" way to look up
>     services by service-type in the catalog.
>     * Implement it in the base libraries OpenStack ships.
>     * Contact the authors of as many OpenStack API libraries that we can
>     find.
>     * Add tempest tests to verify the mappings in both directions.
>     * Change things in devstack/deployer guides.
>
>     The process as described is backwards compatible. That is, once
>     implemented it means that a user can request "volumev2" or
>     "block-storage" with version=2 - and both will return the endpoint the
>     user expects. It also means that we're NOT asking existing clouds to
>     run
>     out and break their users. New cloud deployments can do the new thing -
>     but the old values are handled in both directions.
>
>     There is a hole, which is that people who are not using the base libs
>     OpenStack ships may find themselves with a new cloud that has a
>     different service-type in the catalog than they have used before. It's
>     not idea, to be sure. BUT - hopefully active outreach to the community
>     libraries coupled with documentation will keep the issues to a minimum.
>
>     If we can agree on the matching and fallback model, I am
>     volunteering to
>     do the work to implement in every client library in which it needs
>     to be
>     implemented across OpenStack and to add the tempest tests. (it's
>     actually mostly a patch to keystoneauth, so that's actually not _that_
>     impressive of a volunteer) I will also reach out to as many of the
>     OpenStack API client library authors as I can find, point them at the
>     docs and suggest they add the support.
>
>     Thoughts? Anyone violently opposed?
>
>     Thanks for reading...
>
>     Monty
>
>     __________________________________________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>