Open Stack

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com
> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 04/25/2013 11:15 AM, John Griffith wrote:
>> > Hey Folks,
>> >
>> > With the growth of vendor activity in the form of driver submissions in
>> > Cinder there's some concerns and challenges that I have and I'd like to
>> > get some thoughts from the TC as I move forward.
>> >
>> > The short version here is:
>> >     "What is our goal with OpenStack WRT API behavior and
>> implementation?"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The longer detailed version:
>> >
>> > With the increased activity from Vendors in Cinder adding their drivers
>> > there's some conflicts regarding  what should be required for
>> > acceptance.  My position on this has been pretty simple (albeit
>> > unpopular) that if it's supported by the reference implementation (LVM
>> > Driver) and it's a core API call then those are your requirements.
>> >
>> > In addition I feel that behaviors of the API should be standard
>> > regardless of what driver is being used.  For example; a number of folks
>> > have proposed that they should be able to do things like "delete a
>> > parent volume of a snapshot" if the driver supports it, if the driver
>> > doesn't then just return an error.
>> >
>> > My response to this has been NO WAY, because the result is different
>> > behaviors and expectations based on what driver is currently in use.
>>
>> I agree with you 100% on this.
>>
>> >  This is very bad IMO because the whole point of Cinder from my
>> > perspective is to abstract those differences and details out.  Adding
>> > functionality and features on top of the reference implementation (via
>> > extensions, types etc) is one thing, but deviating from the behavior is
>> > a very bad idea IMO.  It would be one thing if there was no way to
>> > achieve what the vendor would like to accomplish but the fact is in
>> > almost every one of these cases that comes up there's a way to do what
>> > they would like, it just doesn't use the vocabulary or semantics that
>> > they would like.
>> >
>> > Anyway, I know we pushed the "what is OpenStack" back to the board at
>> > one point and I don't recall ever seeing a clear response on that.  What
>> > I'd like to do as a TC function is to actually define some sort of goal
>> > or mission statement of what we are hoping to provide.  This doesn't
>> > have to be a huge debate or a 1000 page manifesto, just a clear mission
>> > statement on what an end user or provider should expect when they
>> > install OpenStack projects and use the API.
>>
>> Actually, the important response here is that it's on the TC to define
>> the technical characteristics. I believe your questions above are well
>> within scope.
>>
>> I'll say this - the current stated value proposition for OpenStack is
>> that multiple inter-operable clouds that run OpenStack provide value for
>> the user by preventing vendor lock in.
>>
>> We have several programs running right now to work on doing
>> interoperability definitions and testing.
>>
>> I think that it's safe to say that the emerging view point is that the
>> user experience of using an OpenStack cloud should not be altered based
>> on implementation choices. To that end, I believe you've been making the
>> right call, and we need to continue pushing viewpoints such as that.
>>
>
> I agree with the goal, but we also have to be careful not to define the
> pre and post conditions of the API endpoints based on assumptions derived
> from the capabilities of a single backend/driver (whether from a vendor or
> an open source project) in a way that restricts the feature set of
> OpenStack as a whole. For example, if we assume that snapshots always have
> a parent volume because some part of OpenStack core (not a driver) wants to
> do something with that volume, that's one thing. But if we assume that the
> parent volume is always there because a particular driver requires it not
> be deleted, maybe that's not something we need to bake into the API
> definition. (Disclaimer: I'm not a block storage expert, so take that as an
> example rather than an argument for/against this specific decision.)
>

Fair point, and I'm not saying we limit anybody in what they can provide,
but I am saying it seems wrong to allow everybody to have their own
definition and implementation.  I think there's a clear difference between
core API/Functionality and extras as you mention.

>
> Another way to handle interoperability for "optional" features/behaviors
> is to provide an API for the client to learn what is supported by a given
> implementation. That way at least the app calling the API can decide what
> to allow before trying something and getting an error.
>

Sure, but in the case of Cinder or multiple back-ends you have no
expectation on what the behaviors or characteristics are.  This seems
contradictory to me to say "API for the client to learn what's supported"
and to use the term interoperability.  That means interoperability if you
implement OpenStack exactly the same way with the same options and back-end
devices.

>
> Doug
>
>
>>
>> > I can continue to make my own calls on this which is fine with me, but I
>> > suspect that other projects either are dealing with, or will be dealing
>> > with this same sort of issue.  It might be worth discussing and putting
>> > some sort of concept around what our goal is here..
>>
>> I'd be in favor of making a more formal technical statement around what
>> we think interoperability and API policy should look like here. You're
>> WELL within your rights as PTL to just be making that call right now -
>> but writing something down and being clear about it so that it doesn't
>> keep coming up might be friendly to people.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-TC mailing list
>> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-TC mailing list
> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/attachments/20130425/37a86f05/attachment-0001.html>