Open Stack

Meta: When responding to lists, please do not cc individuals, just
repond to the list. Thanks, response within.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Gilles Dubreuil wrote:

> In order to continue and progress on the API Schema guideline [1] as 
> mentioned in [2] to make APIs more machine-discoverable and also discussed 
> during [3].
>
> Unfortunately until a new or either a second meeting time slot has been 
> allocated,  inconveniently for everyone, have to be done by emails.

I'm sorry that the meeting time is excluding you and others, but our
efforts to have either a second meeting or to change the time have
met with limited response (except from you).

In any case, the meeting are designed to be checkpoints where we
resolve stuck questions and checkpoint where we are on things. It is
better that most of the work be done in emails and on reviews as
that's the most inclusive, and is less dependent on time-related
variables.

So moving the discussion about schemas here is the right thing and
the fact that it hasn't happened (until now) is the reason for what
appears to be a rather lukewarm reception from the people writing
the API-SIG newsletter: if there's no traffic on either the gerrit
review or here in email then there's no evidence of demand. You're
asserting here that there is; that's great.

> Of course new features have to be decided (voted) by the community but how 
> does that work when there are not enough people voting in?
> It seems unfair to decide not to move forward and ignore the request because 
> the others people interested are not participating at this level.

In a world of limited resources we can't impose work on people. The
SIG is designed to be a place where people can come to make progress
on API-related issues. If people don't show up, progress can't be
made. Showing up doesn't have to mean show up at an IRC meeting. In
fact I very much hope that it never means that. Instead it means
writing things (like your email message) and seeking out
collaborators to push your idea(s) forward.

> It's very important  to consider the fact "I" am representing more than just 
> myself but an Openstack integration team, whose members are supporting me, 
> and our work impacts others teams involved in their open source product 
> consuming OpenStack. I'm sorry if I haven't made this more clear from the 
> beginning, I guess I'm still learning on the particiaption process. So from 
> now on, I'm going to use "us" instead.

Can some of those "us" show up on the mailing list, the gerrit
reviews, and prototype work that Graham has done?

> Also from discussions with other developers from AT&T (OpenStack summit in 
> Sydney) and SAP (Misty project) who are already using automation to consume 
> APIs, this is really needed.

Them too.

> I've also mentioned the now known fact that no SDK has full time resources to 
> maintain it (which was the initial trigger for us) more automation is the 
> only sustainable way to continue the journey.
>
> Finally how can we dare say no to more automation? Unless of course, only 
> artisan work done by real hipster is allowed ;)

Nobody is saying no to automation (as far as I'm aware). Some people
(e.g., me, but not just me) are saying "unless there's an active
community to do this work and actively publish about it and the
related use cases that drive it it's impossible to make it a
priority". Some other people (also me, but not just me) are also
saying "schematizing API client generation is not my favorite thing"
but that's just a personal opinion and essentially meaningless
because yet other people are saying "I love API schema!".

What's missing, though, is continuous enagement on producing
children of that love.

>> Furthermore, API-Schema will be problematic for services that use 
> microversions. If you have some insight or opinions on this, please add your 
> comments to that review.
>
> I understand microversion standardization (OpenAPI) has not happened yet or 
> if it ever does but that shouldn't preclude making progress.

Of course, but who are you expecting to make that progress? The
API-SIGs statement of "not something we're likely to pursue as a
part of guidance" is about apparent unavailability of interested
people. If that changes then the guidance situation probably changes
too.

But not writing guiadance is different from provide a place to talk
about it. That's what a SIG is for. Think of it as a room with
coffee and snacks where it is safe to talk about anything related to
APIs. And that room exists in email just as much as it does in IRC
and at the PTG. Ideally it exists _most_ in email.

> So summarize and clarify, we are talking about SDK being able to build their 
> interface to Openstack APIs in an automated way but statically from API 
> Schema generated by every project. Such API Schema is already built in memory 
> during API reference documentation generation and could be saved in JSON 
> format (for instance) (see [5]).

What do you see as the current roadblocks preventing this work from
continuing to make progress?

-- 
Chris Dent                       ٩◔̯◔۶           https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent