Open Stack

2011/7/8 Ewan Mellor <Ewan.Mellor at eu.citrix.com>:
>> The whole point of supporting the EC2 API is to support people's
>> existing tools and whatnot. If we follow the spec, but the clients
>> don't work, we're doing it wrong.
> True enough.  However, in the case where we've got a demonstrated divergence from the spec, we should report that against the client.  I agree that we want to support pre-existing tools, but it's less clear that we want to support _buggy_ tools.

We do. We have to. We have no way to know what sort of clients people
are using. We can only attempt to check the open source ones, but
there's likely loads of other ones that people have built themselves
and never shared. Not only do people have to be able, motivated and
allowed to change their tools to work with OpenStack, they also need
to *realise* that this is something that needs to happen. We can't
assume the symptoms they'll experience even gives as much as a hint
that the ID's they're getting back is too long. They may just get a
general error of some sort.

If we a) expect people to consume the EC2 API we expose, and (more
importantly) b) expect ISP's to offer this API to their customers, it
needs to be as close to "just another EC2 region" as possible.

> If Amazon turn out to be resistant to fixing that problem, then we'll obviously have to accept that and move on, but we should at least give them a chance to respond on that.

Amazon is not the problem. At least not the only problem. I'm not even
going to begin to guess how many different tools exist to talk to the
EC2 API.

-- 
Soren Hansen        | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer    | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/