On 2018-10-10 13:24:28 +1100 (+1100), Gilles Dubreuil wrote:
> On 09/10/18 23:58, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > On 2018-10-09 08:52:52 -0400 (-0400), Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
> > [...]
> > > It seems to me that a major goal of openstacksdk is to hide
> > > differences between clouds from the user. If the user is meant
> > > to use a GraphQL library themselves, we lose this and the user
> > > needs to figure it out themselves. Did I understand that
> > > correctly?
> > This is especially useful where the SDK implements business
> > logic for common operations like "if the user requested A and
> > the cloud supports features B+C+D then use those to fulfil the
> > request, otherwise fall back to using features E+F".
> The features offered to the user don't have to change, it's just a
> different architecture.
> The user doesn't have to deal with a GraphQL library, only the
> client applications (consuming OpenStack APIs). And there are also
> UI tools such as GraphiQL which allow to interact directly with
> GraphQL servers.

My point was simply that SDKs provide more than a simple translation
of network API calls and feature discovery. There can also be rather
a lot of "business logic" orchestrating multiple primitive API calls
to reach some more complex outcome. The services don't want to embed
this orchestrated business logic themselves, and it makes little
sense to replicate the same algorithms in every single application
which wants to make use of such composite functionality. There are
common actions an application might wish to take which involve
speaking to multiple APIs for different services to make specific
calls in a particular order, perhaps feeding the results of one into
the next.

Can you explain how GraphQL eliminates the above reasons for an SDK?
Jeremy Stanley

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to