On 17/11/13 21:57, Steve Baker wrote:
On 11/15/2013 05:19 AM, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
I've thrown together a rough sketch of the proposed API for
autoscaling. It's written in API-Blueprint format (which is a simple
subset of Markdown) and provides schemas for inputs and outputs using
JSON-Schema. The source document is currently
Apologies if I'm about to re-litigate an old argument, but...
At summit we discussed creating a new endpoint (and new pythonclient)
for autoscaling. Instead I think the autoscaling API could just be added
to the existing heat-api endpoint.
Arguments for just making auto scaling part of heat api include:
* Significantly less development, packaging and deployment configuration
of not creating a heat-autoscaling-api and python-autoscalingclient
Having a separate endpoint does not necessarily mean creating
heat-autoscaling-api. We can have two endpoints in the keystone catalog
pointing to the same API process. I always imagined that this would be
the first step.
It doesn't necessarily require a python-scalingclient either, although I
would lean toward having one.
* Autoscaling is orchestration (for some definition of orchestration) so
belongs in the orchestration service endpoint
* The autoscaling API includes heat template snippets, so a heat service
is a required dependency for deployers anyway
* End-users are still free to use the autoscaling portion of the heat
API without necessarily being aware of (or directly using) heat
templates and stacks
* It seems acceptable for single endpoints to manage many resources (eg,
the increasingly disparate list of resources available via the neutron API)
Arguments for making a new auto scaling api include:
* Autoscaling is not orchestration (for some narrower definition of
* Autoscaling implementation will be handled by something other than
heat engine (I have assumed the opposite)
(no doubt this list will be added to in this thread)
What do you think?
I support a separate endpoint because it gives us more options in the
future. We may well reach a point where we decide that autoscaling
belongs in a separate project (not program), but that option is
foreclosed to us if we combine it in the same endpoint. Personally I
think it would be great if we could eventually reduce the coupling
between autoscaling and Heat to the point where that would be possible.
IMO we should also be giving providers the flexibility to deploy only
autoscaling publicly, and only deploy Heat for internal access (i.e. by
services like autoscaling, Trove, Savanna, &c.)
In short, we live in an uncertain world and more options for the future
beats fewer options in the future. The cost of keeping these options
open does not appear high to me.
OpenStack-dev mailing list