Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][appcat][murano][app-catalog] The future of the App Catalog

[Michael Glasgow]

On 3/9/2017 6:08 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:

Christopher Aedo wrote:

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:

[...]
In parallel, Docker developed a pretty successful containerized
application marketplace (the Docker Hub), with hundreds of thousands of
regularly-updated apps. Keeping the App Catalog around (including its
thinly-wrapped Docker container Murano packages) make us look like we
are unsuccessfully trying to compete with that ecosystem, while
OpenStack is in fact completely complementary.


Without something like Murano "thinly wrapping" docker apps, how would
you propose current users of OpenStack clouds deploy docker apps?  Or
any other app for that matter?  It seems a little unfair to talk about
murano apps this way when no reasonable alternative exists for easily
deploying docker apps.  When I look back at the recent history of how
we've handled containers (nova-docker, magnum, kubernetes, etc) it
does not seem like we're making it easy for the folks who want to
deploy a container on their cloud...

[...]
I just think that adding the Murano abstraction in the middle of it and
using an AppCatalog-provided Murano-powered generic Docker container
wrapper is introducing unnecessary options and complexity -- options
that are strategically hurting us when we talk to those adjacent
communities...


I don't disagree with any of your observations thus far, but I'm curious 
what people think this portends for the future of Murano with respect to 
non-containerized workloads.


Let's assume for a moment that VMs aren't going away tomorrow.  Some 
won't agree, but I'm not sure that whole debate adds a lot of value here.


In that context, Murano is interesting to me because it seems like the 
OO-like abstraction it provides is the right layer at which to link 
application components for such workloads, where you have, say, a Fruit 
class that can be extended for Apples and Oranges, and any type of 
Animal can come along and consume any type of Fruit.  While not a 
panacea, there are some clear advantages to working at this layer 
relative to trying to link everything together at the level of Heat, for 
example.


For this strategy to work, a critical element will be driving 
standardization in those interfaces.  I had seen the App Catalog as a 
venue for driving that, not necessarily today but possibly at some point 
in the future.  It's not the *only* place to do that, and after batting 
it around with some of the guys here, I'm starting to think it's not 
even the best place to do it.  But it was a thought I had when first 
reading this thread.


It makes sense to me that for container workloads, the COE should handle 
all of this orchestration, and OpenStack should just get out of the way. 
 But in the case of VMs, Murano's abstraction seems useful and holds 
the promise of reducing overall complexity.  So if we truly believe that 
OpenStack and containers are complementary, it would be great if someone 
can articulate a vision for that relationship.


To be clear, I have no strong preference wrt the future of the App 
Catalog.  If anything, I'd lean toward retirement for all the reasons 
that have been given.  But I do wish that someone more familiar than me 
with this area could speak to the longer term vision for Murano. 
Granted it's an orthogonal concern, but clearly this decision will have 
some effects on its future.


--
Michael Glasgow

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][appcat][murano][app-catalog] The future of the App Catalog

[Joshua Harlow]

Clint Byrum wrote:

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-03-10 16:48:02 +0100:

Christopher Aedo wrote:

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:

Christopher Aedo wrote:

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:

[...]
In parallel, Docker developed a pretty successful containerized
application marketplace (the Docker Hub), with hundreds of thousands of
regularly-updated apps. Keeping the App Catalog around (including its
thinly-wrapped Docker container Murano packages) make us look like we
are unsuccessfully trying to compete with that ecosystem, while
OpenStack is in fact completely complementary.

Without something like Murano "thinly wrapping" docker apps, how would
you propose current users of OpenStack clouds deploy docker apps?  Or
any other app for that matter?  It seems a little unfair to talk about
murano apps this way when no reasonable alternative exists for easily
deploying docker apps.  When I look back at the recent history of how
we've handled containers (nova-docker, magnum, kubernetes, etc) it
does not seem like we're making it easy for the folks who want to
deploy a container on their cloud...

I'd say there are two approaches: you can use the container-native
approach ("docker run" after provisioning some container-enabled host
using Nova or K8s cluster using Magnum), or you can use the
OpenStack-native approach (zun create nginx) and have it
auto-provisioned for you. Those projects have a narrower scope, and
fully co-opt the container ecosystem without making us appear as trying
to build our own competitive application packaging/delivery/marketplace
mechanism.

I just think that adding the Murano abstraction in the middle of it and
using an AppCatalog-provided Murano-powered generic Docker container
wrapper is introducing unnecessary options and complexity -- options
that are strategically hurting us when we talk to those adjacent
communities...

OK thank you for making it clearer, now I understand where you're
coming from.  I do agree with this sentiment.  I don't have any
experience with zun but it sounds like it's the least-cost way to
deploy a docker at for the environments where it's installed.

I think overall the app catalog was an interesting experiment, but I
don't think it makes sense to continue as-is.  Unless someone comes up
with a compelling new direction, I don't see much point in keeping it
running.  Especially since it sounds like Mirantis is on board (and
the connection to a murano ecosystem was the only thing I saw that
might be interesting).

Right -- it's also worth noting that I'm only talking about the App
Catalog here, not about Murano. Zun might be a bit too young for us to
place all our eggs in the same basket, and some others pointed to how
Murano is still viable alternative package for things that are more
complex than a set of containers. What I'm questioning at the moment is
the continued existence of a marketplace that did not catch fire as much
as we hoped -- an app marketplace with not enough apps just hurts more
than it helps imho.

In particular, I'm fine if (for example) the Docker-wrapper murano
package ends up being shipped as a standard/example package /in/ Murano,
and continues to exist there as a "reasonable alternative for easily
deploying docker apps" :)



While we were debating how to do everything inside our walls, Google
and Microsoft became viable public cloud vendors along side the other
players. We now live in a true multi-cloud world (not just a theoretical
one).


Yes, please if we could stop thinking as a community that everyone 
and everything is inside the openstack wall; and that every company that 
deploys or uses openstack only uses things inside that wall (because 
they don't); companies don't IMHO care anymore (if they ever did) if a 
project is in the openstack wall or not, they care about it being useful 
and working and maintainable/sustainable.




And what I see when I look outside our walls is not people trying to make
the initial steps identical or easy. For that there's PaaS. Instead, for
those that want the full control of their computers that IaaS brings,
there's a focus on making it simple, and growing a process that works
the same for the parts that are the same, and differently for the parts
that are different.

I see things like Terraform embracing the differences in clouds, not
hiding behind lowest common denominators. So if you want a Kubernetes on
GCE and one on OpenStack, you'd write two different Terraform plans
that give you the common set of servers you expect, get you config
management and kubernetes setup and hooked into the infrastructure
however it needs to be, and then get out of your way.

So, while I think it's cool to make sure we are supporting our users
when all they want is us, it might make more sense to do that outside
our walls, where we can meet the rest of the cloud world too.

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][appcat][murano][app-catalog] The future of the App Catalog

[Clint Byrum]

Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2017-03-10 16:48:02 +0100:
> Christopher Aedo wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Thierry Carrez  
> > wrote:
> >> Christopher Aedo wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez  
> >>> wrote:
>  [...]
>  In parallel, Docker developed a pretty successful containerized
>  application marketplace (the Docker Hub), with hundreds of thousands of
>  regularly-updated apps. Keeping the App Catalog around (including its
>  thinly-wrapped Docker container Murano packages) make us look like we
>  are unsuccessfully trying to compete with that ecosystem, while
>  OpenStack is in fact completely complementary.
> >>>
> >>> Without something like Murano "thinly wrapping" docker apps, how would
> >>> you propose current users of OpenStack clouds deploy docker apps?  Or
> >>> any other app for that matter?  It seems a little unfair to talk about
> >>> murano apps this way when no reasonable alternative exists for easily
> >>> deploying docker apps.  When I look back at the recent history of how
> >>> we've handled containers (nova-docker, magnum, kubernetes, etc) it
> >>> does not seem like we're making it easy for the folks who want to
> >>> deploy a container on their cloud...
> >>
> >> I'd say there are two approaches: you can use the container-native
> >> approach ("docker run" after provisioning some container-enabled host
> >> using Nova or K8s cluster using Magnum), or you can use the
> >> OpenStack-native approach (zun create nginx) and have it
> >> auto-provisioned for you. Those projects have a narrower scope, and
> >> fully co-opt the container ecosystem without making us appear as trying
> >> to build our own competitive application packaging/delivery/marketplace
> >> mechanism.
> >>
> >> I just think that adding the Murano abstraction in the middle of it and
> >> using an AppCatalog-provided Murano-powered generic Docker container
> >> wrapper is introducing unnecessary options and complexity -- options
> >> that are strategically hurting us when we talk to those adjacent
> >> communities...
> > 
> > OK thank you for making it clearer, now I understand where you're
> > coming from.  I do agree with this sentiment.  I don't have any
> > experience with zun but it sounds like it's the least-cost way to
> > deploy a docker at for the environments where it's installed.
> > 
> > I think overall the app catalog was an interesting experiment, but I
> > don't think it makes sense to continue as-is.  Unless someone comes up
> > with a compelling new direction, I don't see much point in keeping it
> > running.  Especially since it sounds like Mirantis is on board (and
> > the connection to a murano ecosystem was the only thing I saw that
> > might be interesting).
> 
> Right -- it's also worth noting that I'm only talking about the App
> Catalog here, not about Murano. Zun might be a bit too young for us to
> place all our eggs in the same basket, and some others pointed to how
> Murano is still viable alternative package for things that are more
> complex than a set of containers. What I'm questioning at the moment is
> the continued existence of a marketplace that did not catch fire as much
> as we hoped -- an app marketplace with not enough apps just hurts more
> than it helps imho.
> 
> In particular, I'm fine if (for example) the Docker-wrapper murano
> package ends up being shipped as a standard/example package /in/ Murano,
> and continues to exist there as a "reasonable alternative for easily
> deploying docker apps" :)
> 

While we were debating how to do everything inside our walls, Google
and Microsoft became viable public cloud vendors along side the other
players. We now live in a true multi-cloud world (not just a theoretical
one).

And what I see when I look outside our walls is not people trying to make
the initial steps identical or easy. For that there's PaaS. Instead, for
those that want the full control of their computers that IaaS brings,
there's a focus on making it simple, and growing a process that works
the same for the parts that are the same, and differently for the parts
that are different.

I see things like Terraform embracing the differences in clouds, not
hiding behind lowest common denominators. So if you want a Kubernetes on
GCE and one on OpenStack, you'd write two different Terraform plans
that give you the common set of servers you expect, get you config
management and kubernetes setup and hooked into the infrastructure
however it needs to be, and then get out of your way.

So, while I think it's cool to make sure we are supporting our users
when all they want is us, it might make more sense to do that outside
our walls, where we can meet the rest of the cloud world too.

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][appcat][murano][app-catalog] The future of the App Catalog

[Thierry Carrez]

Christopher Aedo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
>> Christopher Aedo wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez  
>>> wrote:
 [...]
 In parallel, Docker developed a pretty successful containerized
 application marketplace (the Docker Hub), with hundreds of thousands of
 regularly-updated apps. Keeping the App Catalog around (including its
 thinly-wrapped Docker container Murano packages) make us look like we
 are unsuccessfully trying to compete with that ecosystem, while
 OpenStack is in fact completely complementary.
>>>
>>> Without something like Murano "thinly wrapping" docker apps, how would
>>> you propose current users of OpenStack clouds deploy docker apps?  Or
>>> any other app for that matter?  It seems a little unfair to talk about
>>> murano apps this way when no reasonable alternative exists for easily
>>> deploying docker apps.  When I look back at the recent history of how
>>> we've handled containers (nova-docker, magnum, kubernetes, etc) it
>>> does not seem like we're making it easy for the folks who want to
>>> deploy a container on their cloud...
>>
>> I'd say there are two approaches: you can use the container-native
>> approach ("docker run" after provisioning some container-enabled host
>> using Nova or K8s cluster using Magnum), or you can use the
>> OpenStack-native approach (zun create nginx) and have it
>> auto-provisioned for you. Those projects have a narrower scope, and
>> fully co-opt the container ecosystem without making us appear as trying
>> to build our own competitive application packaging/delivery/marketplace
>> mechanism.
>>
>> I just think that adding the Murano abstraction in the middle of it and
>> using an AppCatalog-provided Murano-powered generic Docker container
>> wrapper is introducing unnecessary options and complexity -- options
>> that are strategically hurting us when we talk to those adjacent
>> communities...
> 
> OK thank you for making it clearer, now I understand where you're
> coming from.  I do agree with this sentiment.  I don't have any
> experience with zun but it sounds like it's the least-cost way to
> deploy a docker at for the environments where it's installed.
> 
> I think overall the app catalog was an interesting experiment, but I
> don't think it makes sense to continue as-is.  Unless someone comes up
> with a compelling new direction, I don't see much point in keeping it
> running.  Especially since it sounds like Mirantis is on board (and
> the connection to a murano ecosystem was the only thing I saw that
> might be interesting).

Right -- it's also worth noting that I'm only talking about the App
Catalog here, not about Murano. Zun might be a bit too young for us to
place all our eggs in the same basket, and some others pointed to how
Murano is still viable alternative package for things that are more
complex than a set of containers. What I'm questioning at the moment is
the continued existence of a marketplace that did not catch fire as much
as we hoped -- an app marketplace with not enough apps just hurts more
than it helps imho.

In particular, I'm fine if (for example) the Docker-wrapper murano
package ends up being shipped as a standard/example package /in/ Murano,
and continues to exist there as a "reasonable alternative for easily
deploying docker apps" :)

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][appcat][murano][app-catalog] The future of the App Catalog

[Christopher Aedo]

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> Christopher Aedo wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> In parallel, Docker developed a pretty successful containerized
>>> application marketplace (the Docker Hub), with hundreds of thousands of
>>> regularly-updated apps. Keeping the App Catalog around (including its
>>> thinly-wrapped Docker container Murano packages) make us look like we
>>> are unsuccessfully trying to compete with that ecosystem, while
>>> OpenStack is in fact completely complementary.
>>
>> Without something like Murano "thinly wrapping" docker apps, how would
>> you propose current users of OpenStack clouds deploy docker apps?  Or
>> any other app for that matter?  It seems a little unfair to talk about
>> murano apps this way when no reasonable alternative exists for easily
>> deploying docker apps.  When I look back at the recent history of how
>> we've handled containers (nova-docker, magnum, kubernetes, etc) it
>> does not seem like we're making it easy for the folks who want to
>> deploy a container on their cloud...
>
> I'd say there are two approaches: you can use the container-native
> approach ("docker run" after provisioning some container-enabled host
> using Nova or K8s cluster using Magnum), or you can use the
> OpenStack-native approach (zun create nginx) and have it
> auto-provisioned for you. Those projects have a narrower scope, and
> fully co-opt the container ecosystem without making us appear as trying
> to build our own competitive application packaging/delivery/marketplace
> mechanism.
>
> I just think that adding the Murano abstraction in the middle of it and
> using an AppCatalog-provided Murano-powered generic Docker container
> wrapper is introducing unnecessary options and complexity -- options
> that are strategically hurting us when we talk to those adjacent
> communities...

OK thank you for making it clearer, now I understand where you're
coming from.  I do agree with this sentiment.  I don't have any
experience with zun but it sounds like it's the least-cost way to
deploy a docker at for the environments where it's installed.

I think overall the app catalog was an interesting experiment, but I
don't think it makes sense to continue as-is.  Unless someone comes up
with a compelling new direction, I don't see much point in keeping it
running.  Especially since it sounds like Mirantis is on board (and
the connection to a murano ecosystem was the only thing I saw that
might be interesting).

-Christopher

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][appcat][murano][app-catalog] The future of the App Catalog

[Thierry Carrez]

Christopher Aedo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
>> [...]
>> In parallel, Docker developed a pretty successful containerized
>> application marketplace (the Docker Hub), with hundreds of thousands of
>> regularly-updated apps. Keeping the App Catalog around (including its
>> thinly-wrapped Docker container Murano packages) make us look like we
>> are unsuccessfully trying to compete with that ecosystem, while
>> OpenStack is in fact completely complementary.
> 
> Without something like Murano "thinly wrapping" docker apps, how would
> you propose current users of OpenStack clouds deploy docker apps?  Or
> any other app for that matter?  It seems a little unfair to talk about
> murano apps this way when no reasonable alternative exists for easily
> deploying docker apps.  When I look back at the recent history of how
> we've handled containers (nova-docker, magnum, kubernetes, etc) it
> does not seem like we're making it easy for the folks who want to
> deploy a container on their cloud...

I'd say there are two approaches: you can use the container-native
approach ("docker run" after provisioning some container-enabled host
using Nova or K8s cluster using Magnum), or you can use the
OpenStack-native approach (zun create nginx) and have it
auto-provisioned for you. Those projects have a narrower scope, and
fully co-opt the container ecosystem without making us appear as trying
to build our own competitive application packaging/delivery/marketplace
mechanism.

I just think that adding the Murano abstraction in the middle of it and
using an AppCatalog-provided Murano-powered generic Docker container
wrapper is introducing unnecessary options and complexity -- options
that are strategically hurting us when we talk to those adjacent
communities...

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][appcat][murano][app-catalog] The future of the App Catalog

[Ian Cordasco]

-Original Message-
From: Christopher Aedo <d...@aedo.net>
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: March 7, 2017 at 22:11:22
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][appcat][murano][app-catalog] The
future of the App Catalog

> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > The App Catalog was created early 2015 as a marketplace of pre-packaged
> > applications that you can deploy using Murano. Initially a demo by
> > Mirantis, it was converted into an open upstream project team, and
> > deployed as a "beta" as apps.openstack.org.
> >
> > Since then it grew additional categories (Glance images, Heat & Tosca
> > templates), but otherwise did not pick up a lot of steam. The website
> > (still labeled "beta") features 45 glance images, 6 Tosca templates, 13
> > heat templates and 94 murano packages (~30% of which are just thin
> > wrappers around Docker containers). Traffic stats show around 100 visits
> > per week, 75% of which only read the index page.
> >
> > In parallel, Docker developed a pretty successful containerized
> > application marketplace (the Docker Hub), with hundreds of thousands of
> > regularly-updated apps. Keeping the App Catalog around (including its
> > thinly-wrapped Docker container Murano packages) make us look like we
> > are unsuccessfully trying to compete with that ecosystem, while
> > OpenStack is in fact completely complementary.
>
> Without something like Murano "thinly wrapping" docker apps, how would
> you propose current users of OpenStack clouds deploy docker apps? Or
> any other app for that matter? It seems a little unfair to talk about
> murano apps this way when no reasonable alternative exists for easily
> deploying docker apps. When I look back at the recent history of how
> we've handled containers (nova-docker, magnum, kubernetes, etc) it
> does not seem like we're making it easy for the folks who want to
> deploy a container on their cloud...
>
> Please understand I am not pleading to keep the Community App Catalog
> alive in perpetuity. This just sounds like an unfair point of
> comparison. One of the biggest challenges we've faced with the app
> catalog since day one is that there is no such thing as a simple
> definition of an "OpenStack Application". OpenStack is an IaaS before
> anything else, and to my knowledge there is no universally accepted
> application deployment mechanism for OpenStack clouds. Heat doesn't
> solve that problem as its very operator focused, and while being very
> popular and used heavily, it's not used as a way to share generic
> templates suitable for deploying apps across different clouds. Murano
> is not widely adopted (last time I checked it's not available on any
> public clouds, though I hear it is actually used on a several
> university clouds, and it's also used on a few private clouds I'm
> aware of.)
>
> As a place to find things that run on OpenStack clouds, the app
> catalog did a reasonable job. If anything, the experiment showed that
> there is no community looking for a place to share OpenStack-specific
> applications. There are definitely communities for PaaS layers (cloud
> foundry, mesosphere, docker, kubernetes), but I don't see any
> community for openstack-native applications that can be deployed on
> any cloud, nor a commonly accepted way to deploy them.
>
> > In the past we have retired projects that were dead upstream. The App
> > Catalog is not in this case: it has an active maintenance team, which
> > has been successfully maintaining the framework and accepting
> > applications. If we end up retiring the App Catalog, it would clearly
> > not be a reflection on that team performance, which has been stellar
> > despite limited resources. It would be because the beta was arguably not
> > successful in building an active marketplace of applications, and
> > because its continuous existence is not a great fit from a strategy
> > perspective. Such removal would be a first for our community, but I
> > think it's now time to consider it.
> >
> > Before we discuss or decide anything at the TC level, I'd like to
> > collect everyone thoughts (and questions) on this. Please feel free to
> > reply to this thread (or reach out to me privately if you prefer). Thanks !
>
> As the former PTL I am obviously a little bit biased. Even though my
> focus has shifted and I've stepped away from the app catalog, I had
> been spending a lot of time tryin

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][appcat][murano][app-catalog] The future of the App Catalog

[Adam Heczko]

Personally I tend to agree with Christopher's POV. IMO the OpenStack
community and TC could and should make a progress in perception how to make
OpenStack more 'consumable' and useful for a broader audience. And IMO
AppCatalog falls into this direction of making OpenStack more consumable
and useful. Rather than retiring AppCatalog let's discuss how to improve
it, try to figure out what's missing if anything etc.
Also please note that Murano is solving much deeper (wider?) problem than
Docker app deployment. Murano is more similar to what the Helm is to
Kubernetes [1]. Murano offers advanced application and infrastructure
integration capabilities.

[1] https://github.com/kubernetes/helm

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Christopher Aedo  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez 
> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > The App Catalog was created early 2015 as a marketplace of pre-packaged
> > applications that you can deploy using Murano. Initially a demo by
> > Mirantis, it was converted into an open upstream project team, and
> > deployed as a "beta" as apps.openstack.org.
> >
> > Since then it grew additional categories (Glance images, Heat & Tosca
> > templates), but otherwise did not pick up a lot of steam. The website
> > (still labeled "beta") features 45 glance images, 6 Tosca templates, 13
> > heat templates and 94 murano packages (~30% of which are just thin
> > wrappers around Docker containers). Traffic stats show around 100 visits
> > per week, 75% of which only read the index page.
> >
> > In parallel, Docker developed a pretty successful containerized
> > application marketplace (the Docker Hub), with hundreds of thousands of
> > regularly-updated apps. Keeping the App Catalog around (including its
> > thinly-wrapped Docker container Murano packages) make us look like we
> > are unsuccessfully trying to compete with that ecosystem, while
> > OpenStack is in fact completely complementary.
>
> Without something like Murano "thinly wrapping" docker apps, how would
> you propose current users of OpenStack clouds deploy docker apps?  Or
> any other app for that matter?  It seems a little unfair to talk about
> murano apps this way when no reasonable alternative exists for easily
> deploying docker apps.  When I look back at the recent history of how
> we've handled containers (nova-docker, magnum, kubernetes, etc) it
> does not seem like we're making it easy for the folks who want to
> deploy a container on their cloud...
>
> Please understand I am not pleading to keep the Community App Catalog
> alive in perpetuity.  This just sounds like an unfair point of
> comparison.  One of the biggest challenges we've faced with the app
> catalog since day one is that there is no such thing as a simple
> definition of an "OpenStack Application".  OpenStack is an IaaS before
> anything else, and to my knowledge there is no universally accepted
> application deployment mechanism for OpenStack clouds.  Heat doesn't
> solve that problem as its very operator focused, and while being very
> popular and used heavily, it's not used as a way to share generic
> templates suitable for deploying apps across different clouds.  Murano
> is not widely adopted (last time I checked it's not available on any
> public clouds, though I hear it is actually used on a several
> university clouds, and it's also used on a few private clouds I'm
> aware of.)
>
> As a place to find things that run on OpenStack clouds, the app
> catalog did a reasonable job.  If anything, the experiment showed that
> there is no community looking for a place to share OpenStack-specific
> applications.  There are definitely communities for PaaS layers (cloud
> foundry, mesosphere, docker, kubernetes), but I don't see any
> community for openstack-native applications that can be deployed on
> any cloud, nor a commonly accepted way to deploy them.
>
> > In the past we have retired projects that were dead upstream. The App
> > Catalog is not in this case: it has an active maintenance team, which
> > has been successfully maintaining the framework and accepting
> > applications. If we end up retiring the App Catalog, it would clearly
> > not be a reflection on that team performance, which has been stellar
> > despite limited resources. It would be because the beta was arguably not
> > successful in building an active marketplace of applications, and
> > because its continuous existence is not a great fit from a strategy
> > perspective. Such removal would be a first for our community, but I
> > think it's now time to consider it.
> >
> > Before we discuss or decide anything at the TC level, I'd like to
> > collect everyone thoughts (and questions) on this. Please feel free to
> > reply to this thread (or reach out to me privately if you prefer).
> Thanks !
>
> As the former PTL I am obviously a little bit biased.  Even though my
> focus has shifted and I've stepped away from the app catalog, I had
> been 

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][appcat][murano][app-catalog] The future of the App Catalog

[Christopher Aedo]

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Thierry Carrez  wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> The App Catalog was created early 2015 as a marketplace of pre-packaged
> applications that you can deploy using Murano. Initially a demo by
> Mirantis, it was converted into an open upstream project team, and
> deployed as a "beta" as apps.openstack.org.
>
> Since then it grew additional categories (Glance images, Heat & Tosca
> templates), but otherwise did not pick up a lot of steam. The website
> (still labeled "beta") features 45 glance images, 6 Tosca templates, 13
> heat templates and 94 murano packages (~30% of which are just thin
> wrappers around Docker containers). Traffic stats show around 100 visits
> per week, 75% of which only read the index page.
>
> In parallel, Docker developed a pretty successful containerized
> application marketplace (the Docker Hub), with hundreds of thousands of
> regularly-updated apps. Keeping the App Catalog around (including its
> thinly-wrapped Docker container Murano packages) make us look like we
> are unsuccessfully trying to compete with that ecosystem, while
> OpenStack is in fact completely complementary.

Without something like Murano "thinly wrapping" docker apps, how would
you propose current users of OpenStack clouds deploy docker apps?  Or
any other app for that matter?  It seems a little unfair to talk about
murano apps this way when no reasonable alternative exists for easily
deploying docker apps.  When I look back at the recent history of how
we've handled containers (nova-docker, magnum, kubernetes, etc) it
does not seem like we're making it easy for the folks who want to
deploy a container on their cloud...

Please understand I am not pleading to keep the Community App Catalog
alive in perpetuity.  This just sounds like an unfair point of
comparison.  One of the biggest challenges we've faced with the app
catalog since day one is that there is no such thing as a simple
definition of an "OpenStack Application".  OpenStack is an IaaS before
anything else, and to my knowledge there is no universally accepted
application deployment mechanism for OpenStack clouds.  Heat doesn't
solve that problem as its very operator focused, and while being very
popular and used heavily, it's not used as a way to share generic
templates suitable for deploying apps across different clouds.  Murano
is not widely adopted (last time I checked it's not available on any
public clouds, though I hear it is actually used on a several
university clouds, and it's also used on a few private clouds I'm
aware of.)

As a place to find things that run on OpenStack clouds, the app
catalog did a reasonable job.  If anything, the experiment showed that
there is no community looking for a place to share OpenStack-specific
applications.  There are definitely communities for PaaS layers (cloud
foundry, mesosphere, docker, kubernetes), but I don't see any
community for openstack-native applications that can be deployed on
any cloud, nor a commonly accepted way to deploy them.

> In the past we have retired projects that were dead upstream. The App
> Catalog is not in this case: it has an active maintenance team, which
> has been successfully maintaining the framework and accepting
> applications. If we end up retiring the App Catalog, it would clearly
> not be a reflection on that team performance, which has been stellar
> despite limited resources. It would be because the beta was arguably not
> successful in building an active marketplace of applications, and
> because its continuous existence is not a great fit from a strategy
> perspective. Such removal would be a first for our community, but I
> think it's now time to consider it.
>
> Before we discuss or decide anything at the TC level, I'd like to
> collect everyone thoughts (and questions) on this. Please feel free to
> reply to this thread (or reach out to me privately if you prefer). Thanks !

As the former PTL I am obviously a little bit biased.  Even though my
focus has shifted and I've stepped away from the app catalog, I had
been spending a lot of time trying to figure out how to make
applications an easy to run thing on OpenStack.  I've also been trying
to find a community of people who are looking for that, and it doesn't
seem like they've materialized; possibly because that community
doesn't exist?  Or else we just haven't been able to figure out where
they're hiding ;)

The one consideration that is pretty important here is what this would
mean to the Murano community.  Those folks have been contributed time
and resources to the app catalog project.  They've also standardized
on the app catalog as the distribution mechanism, intending to make
the app catalog UI a native component for Murano. We do need to make
sure that if the app catalog is retired, it doesn't hamper or impact
people who have already deployed Murano and are counting on finding
the apps in the app catalog.

-Christopher

>
> --
> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>
>