Open Stack

On Feb 18, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:

> OK, fair enough.
> 
> Can I ask what the impetus for moving from AMQP to REST for all
> internal APIs is? Seems to me we will be throwing away a lot of
> functionality for the benefit of cross-WAN REST communication?
> 
> -jay


Not to mention building a queueing service whilst moving from AMQP to REST. Shouldn't we eat our own dog food? Mmm...kibbles.

> 
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Paul Voccio <paul.voccio at rackspace.com> wrote:
>> Jay,
>> 
>> I understand Justin's concern if we move /network and /images and /volume
>> to their own endpoints then it would be a change to the customer. I think
>> this could be solved by putting a proxy in front of each endpoint and
>> routing back to the appropriate service endpoint.
>> 
>> I added another image on the wiki page to describe what I'm trying to say.
>> http://wiki.openstack.org/api_transition
>> 
>> I think might not be as bad of a transition since the compute worker would
>> receive a request for a new compute node then it would proxy over to the
>> admin or public api of the network or volume node to request information.
>> It would work very similar to how the queues work now.
>> 
>> pvo
>> 
>> On 2/17/11 8:33 PM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sorry, I don't view the proposed changes from AMQP to REST as being
>>> "customer facing API changes". Could you explain? These are internal
>>> interfaces, no?
>>> 
>>> -jay
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Justin Santa Barbara
>>> <justin at fathomdb.com> wrote:
>>>> An API is for life, not just for Cactus.
>>>> I agree that stability is important.  I don't see how we can claim to
>>>> deliver 'stability' when the plan is then immediately to destablize
>>>> everything with a very disruptive change soon after, including customer
>>>> facing API changes and massive internal re-architecting.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Justin Santa Barbara
>>>>> <justin at fathomdb.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Pulling volumes & images out into separate services (and moving from
>>>>>> AMQP to
>>>>>> REST) sounds like a huge breaking change, so if that is indeed the
>>>>> plan,
>>>>>> let's do that asap (i.e. Cactus).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry, I have to disagree with you here, Justin :)  The Cactus release
>>>>> is supposed to be about stability and the only features going into
>>>>> Cactus should be to achieve API parity of the OpenStack Compute API
>>>>> with the Rackspace Cloud Servers API. Doing such a huge change like
>>>>> moving communication from AMQP to HTTP for volume and network would be
>>>>> a change that would likely undermine the stability of the Cactus
>>>>> release severely.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -jay
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
>> embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
>> individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
>> expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace.
>> Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited.
>> If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail
>> at abuse at rackspace.com, and delete the original message.
>> Your cooperation is appreciated.
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp