On 8/7/2015 3:56 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote:
Hi,
Flagged Nova and Cinder into this discussion as they were the first intended
adopters iirc.
I don't have big religious view about this topic. I wasn't huge fan of the idea
separating it in the first place and I'm not huge fan of keeping it separate
either.
After couple of cycles we have so far witnessed only the downside of
glance_store being on it's own. We break even our own gate with our own lib
releases, we have one extra bug tracker to look after and even not huge but it
just increases the load on the release and stable teams as well.
In my understanding the interest within Nova to consume glance_store directly
has pretty much died off since we separated it, please do correct me if I'm
wrong.
I haven't heard anyone expressing any interest to consume glance_store directly
within Cinder either.
So far I have failed to see use-case for glance_store alone apart from Glance
API Server and the original intended use-cases/consumers have either not
expressed interest what so ever or directly expressed being not interested.
Do we have any reason what so ever keeping doing the extra work to keep these
two components separate? I'm more than happy to do so or at least extend this
discussion for a cycle if there is projects out there planning to utilize it. I
don't want to be in middle of separating it again next cycle because someone
wanted to consume and forked out the old tree because we decided to kill it but
I'm not keen to take the overhead of it either without reason.
- Erno
-----Original Message-----
From: Nikhil Komawar [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 6:21 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Glance] glance_store and glance
Hi,
During the mid-cycle we had another proposal that wanted to put back the
glance_store library back into the Glance repo and not leave it is as a
separate repo/project.
The questions outstanding are: what are the use cases that want it as a
separate library?
The original use cases that supported a separate lib have not had much
progress or adoption yet. There have been complaints about overhead of
maintaining it as a separate lib and version tracking without much gain.
The proposals for the re-factor of the library is also a worrysome topic in
terms of the stability of the codebase.
The original use cases from my memory are:
1. Other projects consuming glance_store -- this has become less likely to be
useful.
2. another upload path for users for the convenience of tasks -- not
preferable as we don't want to expose this library to users.
3. ease of addition of newer drivers for the developers -- drivers are only
being removed since.
4. cleaner api / more methods that support backend store capabilities - a
separate library is not necessarily needed, smoother re-factor is possible
within Glance codebase.
Also, the authN/Z complexities and ACL restrictions on the back-end stores
can be potential security loopholes with the library and Glance evolution
separately.
In order to move forward smoothly on this topic in Liberty, I hereby request
input from all concerned developer parties. The decision to keep this as a
separate library will remain in effect if we do not come to resolution within 2
weeks from now. However, if there aren't any significant use cases we may
consider a port back of the same.
Please find some corresponding discussion from the latest Glance weekly
meeting:
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/glance/2015/glance.2015-08-06-
14.03.log.html#l-21
--
Thanks,
Nikhil
__________________________________________________________
________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-
[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
As far as I know no one is actively trying to integrate glance_store
into nova like what the cinder team did with os-brick. I'm not entirely
sure how glance_store drops into nova either. The os-brick integration
was pretty seamless since it was mostly duplicate code.
I thought glance_store somehow got nova closer to using glance v2 but it
seems that's not the case?
And now there is a separate proposal to work on a new thing in nova's
tree that's not python-glanceclient but gets nova to using glance v2
(and v3?), which seems like more splintering.
When the cinder team got nova to support cinder v2, it was Mike Perez
taking over the change to add that support, so I'd expect the same type
of effort from the glance team if they want to propagate newer versions
of the glance API in order to deprecate v1.
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/194303/
--
Thanks,
Matt Riedemann
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
