Open Stack

On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:
> I've worked for the OpenStack Applications Catalog project for a while, and
> we've been using a definition of OpenStack Application closer to "Is it an
> app deployed on OpenStack instances". For a long time now.
>
> There is software, and there are Apps. "Apps" got redefined in most peoples
> minds when mobile world hit.
>
> Software is something that is hard to install. The installer asks a lot of
> questions, it needs to be tuned, etc.
>
> An App, is something my grandmother or young child can deploy and use with a
> click or two. Thats something OpenStack needs more of.

I meant to reply to this when you first wrote it - I'm in complete
agreement with the distinction you've drawn.  I even like the terms,
as they fit pretty well.  Think of wordpress - in the abstract, it's
software that someone installs on a software.  When packaged up for
easy consumption though (via Bitnami for instance) it becomes an App
that an average person can consume without deep technical knowledge.

> If you go ask random person on the street what an App was, I'd be willing to
> bet you would get a definition that is similar the mobile one. "I go to the
> store/catalog/market, search, click install, and then go to "run" and start
> working/playing".

This hints at the other vector we have not been clear about - the
audience we are intending to reach.  I agree there is a set of people
(probably the largest of random folk) who would think of an app as
something you click and start using.  This audience would probably be
in agreement with the way you've defined app vs. software.  There's an
other set of people who are software developers who would be much more
likely to think about how their application stack can access the
infrastructure it's running on via API.

> So I disagree with the definition you laid out as a general term. It is
> unintuitive in that form. I'd suggest any tagging sorts of endeavours use a
> different or more specific term like OpenStack API Application or something.
>
> As for what the App Ecosystem WG wants to focus on, I think its great to
> focus on getting software talking to OpenStack via apis.  No issue there. I
> just want to make sure that we don't cause further confusion with multiple
> projects using the same term drastically differently. Its something users
> have suffered a lot with already.

I initially prompted this question when I joined the App Ecosystem WG
because I did not seem to be on the same page as others in the group
regarding the mission at hand, the audience, and definition of
"OpenStack App".  Thank you Michael for starting this thread to try to
get some clarity and consensus around the question!

-Christopher

>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> ________________________________
> From: Michael Krotscheck [krotscheck at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:16 AM
> To: user-committee
> Subject: [User-committee] [app] What is an App?
>
> As asked 2 meetings ago (and then totally forgotten until I was reminded
> last week), I wrote down my thoughts on the purpose on the App Ecosystem WG,
> as well as how I believe an "App" should be defined. I'd like to open the
> following for discussion, as an update to the mission statement of the App
> Ecosystem WG. We'll also discuss it on the phone on Monday.
>
> =====================
> TL/DR:
> - "To create an ecosystem where a diverse array of applications built for
> OpenStack can thrive."
> - "An OpenStack App is a software project that relies on an OpenStack SDK."
>
> Our purpose is to create an ecosystem where a diverse array of applications
> built for OpenStack can thrive.
>
> A simple statement, which leaves too much undefined. What exactly is an
> OpenStack App? Is it a deployment tool? Is it a web UI? Is it an app
> deployed on OpenStack instances? Is it a cron job? Who is the user? Is it a
> Heat template? Which cloud are they using? Has that cloud been customized?
>
> As the App Ecosystem Working Group, we believe that the common, defining
> element of an "OpenStack App" is not whether it is deployed on OpenStack,
> but whether it relies on direct access to the OpenStack API's. For example,
> we consider Ansible to be an OpenStack app, as its OpenStack cloud core
> modules rely on shade's API implementations.
>
> A more nuanced example is that of Pantheon. Their wordpress/django
> provisioning may be considered an OpenStack app, if they use the magnum API
> to provision their customers' requested instances. Wordpress, however, would
> not be, as it is unaware of its compute environment.
>
> We in the App Ecosystem WG cannot, and should not, predict what our users
> want to do with OpenStack; the best we can do is provide the tools and
> training they need to meet their own business objectives. Tools means SDK's.
> Training means tutorials, classes, and sample projects.
>
> "An OpenStack App is a software project that is built on an OpenStack SDK."
>
> What is an SDK? It is a set of tools, in a specific language, that are easy
> to use for an engineer working in that language. More importantly, it
> supports applications that are built with OpenStack in mind, but _outside_
> of the CLA walled garden. An SDK should make an effort to adhere to the
> tooling and conventions common in the community it is trying to serve.
>
> Furthermore, SDK's often define usage patterns. Some might be focused on
> building User Interfaces, others may be focused on CLI and automation
> tooling, yet more are there for API's and business logic. Usage patterns
> vary greatly, and it is worth neither the time nor the effort to provide
> exhaustive support for every potential use of every API call ever.
>
> Each SDK knows its community; it is not our job to prescribe that
> community's needs, nor to tell them what that SDK should, or should not,
> support. If asked, we may certainly help them refine their mission, however
> providing any form of engineering support, or a one-size-fits-all
> certification program, is well out of scope (And futile besides).
>
> Training and Tutorials, however, are our responsibility. Since we have very
> limited resources, we should set some acceptance criteria for FirstApp and
> Training resources. In this, as in all things Open Source, contribution is
> the only criteria that matters: Is someone willing to do the work?
>
> =====================
> Thoughts? Edits? Add them here:
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/app-ecosystem-wg-mission
> =====================
>
> I've got a few more thoughts on what I feel makes a good SDK which came out
> of writing this, but they're not really relevant to the scope of the WG
> (They're super relevant to my JS SDK work though). Some of the SDK's we
> train for will live in the Big Tent, others outside it, yet ultimately
> they're all outside of our control. My criteria break down as follows:
>
> "A Good SDK ..."
> - ...meets a software engineer on their own turf.
> - ...provides convenience methods for the 80% most common use cases.
> - ...provides low-level API access for custom calls.
>
> That's it for me. Let the discussion begin!
>
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> User-committee mailing list
> User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
>