Open Stack

On 01/12/2016 11:26 AM, Bruno Morel wrote:
> Am I wrong in thinking that it all comes down to the libraries
> compatibilities / coverage ?

that's what I thought for a while but it's not the full picture.
OpenStack implementations offer hundreds of configuration options and
the possible permutations of those will affect how a cloud behaves,
therefore affecting life of a developer. The recent debate around the
tests that require booting Linux as a VM is a magnifying glass over the
issue: all OpenStack clouds behave slightly differently, even when they
run the same code and their front-facing APIs are the same.

> Lib cloud doesn’t support Neutron, pkgcloud does, etc…

I'd like to clarify that apache libcloud *does* support Neutron, in its
openstack driver... What you read in the report is the feedback that
Rackspace helpdesk gave to Marcela, who was using the *rackspace* driver
of libcloud... which apparently lags behind Rackspace's product (I have
not investigated though, I may be wrong.) What I know is that libcloud
*openstack* driver works well with defunct-HPCloud, RAX and DreamHost,
both using neutron.

That said, it is very true that some libraries/SDKs are better
maintained than others and give better experience. For example,
OpenStacks' own Shade sdk is *a lot* (like, thousand++ times) better
than Apache Libcloud when it comes to OpenStack. But Shade doesn't
support Digital Ocean or AWS or $PROVIDERn, so some developers may not
be interested in using it.

> As I am myself working on an Objective-C one (yeah I know it’s not
> very useful, but it allows me to dig down into the APIs and their
> inconsistencies and it’s a fun project :P),I share Stefano’s pain [1]
> through and through (and I’ve just finished Keystone V2 and V3
> support and started Nova..:()

That sounds cool: a native Mac OS client at the horizon? :)

> Maybe we should regroup with Defcore AND the Api workgroup and try to
> share our discoveries and next action items. I fear all those groups
> are trying to target the same ultimate aim (consistency for the
> application developer), but go in slightly different direction…?

Definitely it's a start to admit that app developers have problems that
are not being addressed... I'd love to hear DefCore's opinion.

/stef