Open Stack

The spec for 1.0 and 1.1 are pretty close. The extensions mechanism is the biggest change, iirc.

I think the proxy would make sense if you wanted to have a single api. Not all service providers will but I see this as entirely optional, not required to use the services.

The push to get a completed compute api is the desire move away from the ec2 api to something that we can guide, extend and vote on as a community. The sooner we do the the better.

How is the 1.1 api proposal breaking this?

From: Justin Santa Barbara <justin at fathomdb.com<mailto:justin at fathomdb.com>>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:10:19 -0800
To: Paul Voccio <paul.voccio at rackspace.com<mailto:paul.voccio at rackspace.com>>
Cc: Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com<mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>>, "openstack at lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>" <openstack at lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>>
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Compute API 1.1

Jay: The AMQP->REST was the re-architecting I was referring to, which would not be customer-facing (other than likely introducing new bugs.)  Spinning off the services, if this is visible at the API level, is much more concerning to me.

So Paul, I think the proxy is good because it acknowledges the importance of keeping a consistent API.  But - if our API isn't finalized - why push it out at all, particularly if we're then going to have the overhead of maintaining another translation layer?  For Cactus, let's just support EC2 and/or CloudServers 1.0 API compatibility (again a translation layer, but one we probably have to support anyway.)  Then we can design the right OpenStack API at our leisure and meet all of our goals: a stable Cactus and stable APIs.  If anyone ends up coding to a Cactus OpenStack API, we shouldn't have them become second-class citizens 3 months later.

Justin





On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Paul Voccio <paul.voccio at rackspace.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Justin Santa Barbara
>>> <justin at fathomdb.com<mailto: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<mailto:abuse at rackspace.com>, and delete the original message.
Your cooperation is appreciated.




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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20110218/8d05a7ae/attachment.html>