On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:37:00AM +0100, Geert Jansen wrote:
> i think this makes sense, but i'm not a VDSM expert. I did want to
> point out one other point, below:
> On 11/30/2011 11:40 PM, Adam Litke wrote:
> >Recently we've had some very productive discussions concerning the VDSM API.
> > I
> >want to attempt to refocus the discussion around an emerging proposal and
> >see if
> >we can agree on a sensible path forward.
> >Based on the discussion, I have identified the following requirements that
> >a new API for vdsm should have:
> >1.) Single API that can be consumed by ovirt-engine and ISVs
> > - We don't want to maintain multiple parallel APIs
> > - To develop a vendor ecosystem, we must have a robust external API to
> > vdsm
> I have doubts around how useful the VDSM API will be for creating an
> ecosystem. If you look at most virtualization ISVs today, they want
> to integrate with a multi-node API and not a single-node API. The
> only use case that i know where integrating with a single node API
> is requested is when you're basically creating a virtualization
> management platform like oVirt itself.
A single-node (or standalone VDSM deployment) is a very important use case.
Many people are coming into the oVirt community from different perspectives.
The strength of the ecosystem depends, in part, on the ability of oVirt
components to be combined in unique ways with other software to produce
solutions. The complete oVirt stack is a great thing, but not the only way to
use the technology.
> [Since we haven't met before, a brief intro... I have been
> responsible at Red Hat for buiding our virtualization ecosystem for
> the past year or so.]
Hi and thanks for the introduction! I look forward to working with you and the
rest of the oVirt community on these issues :)
Adam Litke <a...@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center
vdsm-devel mailing list