JCLOUDS-210 (for DNS), JCLOUDS-211 (for load balancers) and JCLOUDS-212 (for cloud databases) created.
A. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>wrote: > Which actually reminds me, I should open JIRAs for DNS/loadbalancer > abstractions... > > A. > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Matt Stephenson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I'm ok with the abstraction being pretty minimal for starters, but that >> really should be added into jclouds-labs and promoted concurrently with >> either (or both) trove and RDS. I think you summed up my feelings pretty >> well Andrew. We're a cloud-agnostic api provider, it makes more sense for >> us to make sure we're solidly moving that way long-term. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected] >> >wrote: >> >> > I personally would like to avoid promoting things to core that aren't >> > implementations of an abstraction - I know we've got DNS stuff that >> doesn't >> > have an abstraction in core, but, again, personally, I don't much care >> for >> > that. I'd be in favor of holding off on moving trove from labs->core >> until >> > there's a "cloud db" abstraction a la compute/blobstore for RDS/trove to >> > implement. >> > >> > A. >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Matt Stephenson <[email protected] >> > >wrote: >> > >> > > It sounds like a primary motivator is to widen the audience. We have >> > many >> > > providers and apis in labs that are more widely adopted. Historically >> > this >> > > hasn't been a major barrier to adoption overall. >> > > >> > > The goal of labs was to provide a place to release software that we >> still >> > > feel is in flux overall. How stable is the overall API for this if >> we've >> > > not really done much work on RDS lately to ensure that a unified API >> > > between the two (long term) is possible without changing the api into >> the >> > > trove provider? >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Everett Toews >> > > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Jul 29, 2013, at 2:03 PM, Matt Stephenson wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > We currently have an outstanding set of pull requests for this, >> prior >> > > to >> > > > us >> > > > > discussing this on dev. I'm personally not in favor of promoting >> it >> > at >> > > > > this time because I feel it's a bit too immature at this time. >> > > > >> > > > Software gains maturity by being released to a wider audience and by >> > > being >> > > > used. And what we have here is more than a minimum viable product. >> It's >> > > > complete, working support for the OpenStack Trove/Rackspace Cloud >> > > Databases >> > > > API. >> > > > >> > > > > We still >> > > > > have a good deal of other apis that there is more demand for to be >> > > > promoted >> > > > > up. >> > > > >> > > > It's not an either/or situation amongst the APIs. If an API is >> > complete, >> > > > it can be promoted. >> > > > >> > > > > What value do we gain by promoting this as the only api of it's >> kind >> > > into >> > > > > jclouds now? >> > > > >> > > > We gain a wider audience. We gain the experience of seeing how >> people >> > use >> > > > it and what problems they run into. We gain the insights and >> experience >> > > > that are necessary to create higher level abstractions. All of those >> > > things >> > > > that helps software mature. >> > > > >> > > > Just because an implementation from another provider isn't ready, >> > doesn't >> > > > mean we should hold back on releasing software. We need to start >> > > somewhere. >> > > > >> > > > In general, the value of jclouds increases for our users because >> we'll >> > > > have complete and maintained support for another cloud API. >> > > > >> > > > > Who in the community is using this in labs today? >> > > > >> > > > Naturally we (Rackspace) are. There are also examples and doc ready >> to >> > > go. >> > > > Having a "labs" label on something will prevent many from adopting >> it. >> > > > >> > > > > How comfortable are we as a community in supporting this and >> working >> > on >> > > > > issues related to it? >> > > > >> > > > I can say with complete conviction that, as a part of this >> community, >> > > > Zack, Jeremy, and myself are 100% committed to supporting it and >> > working >> > > on >> > > > issues related to it. >> > > > >> > > > Regards, >> > > > Everett >> > > >> > >> > >
