On 11/30/2011 05:40 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
> 2.) Full vdsm capabilities are exposed without requiring ovirt-engine
>   - ovirt components should be modular and independently useful
>   - Some deployments might want to manage nodes without ovirt-engine
> 3.) Standardized protocol with low overhead
>   - Required for widespread adoption
> 4.) Support for asynchronous tasks and events
>   - Needed by ovirt-engine and other consumers
> Based on these requirements, the following proposal has started to emerge:
> Create a REST API that will provide all of the functionality that is currently
> available via the xmlrpc interface
I just want to stress that it WILL deprecate and significantly change 
some aspects of the API most obvious are the task aspects of the API. 
Even though the commands might be the same the current async\sync task 
semantics might change to better accommodate the QMF wrapper and other 
users. I don't think it's needed to go into details now but I am 
stressing that there WILL be API calls the will not migrate or 
significantly change in the REST API.
>   (with the goal of deprecating xmlrpc once it
> becomes mature enough).  To support advanced clustering features that
> ovirt-engine is planning, we'll write an QMF broker that can proxy the REST 
> onto a message bus.  ovirt-engine will interact with vdsm exclusively over 
> this
> bus but the REST API will be the principle API and the entry point for ISV 
> apps.
> A REST API provides a light-weight and standard way to access all of the vdsm
> functionality.
> The REST API will handle events by exposing a new 'events' collection at the 
> api
> root.  REST users will use some sort of polling to collect these events.  The
> details of this interface are being worked on.  Several ways for minimizing 
> the
> impact of polling have been discussed.  The QMF broker can expose a
> publish/subscribe model for events as appropriate.
> Is this model an acceptable way to improve the vdsm API?  I would like to hear
> the opinions of ovirt-engine developers, vdsm developers, and other
> stakeholders.  Thanks for providing feedback on this proposal!

vdsm-devel mailing list

Reply via email to