On 07/10/2017 04:31 PM, Mikhail Fedosin wrote:
Thank you for asking this! It's really very important and interesting,
so I'm going to explain those things more detailed.
First, when we designed Glare, we kept in mind the compatibility with
Glance, and I can tell that Glance data from the database can be ported
to Glare with a simple script without any loss.
Second, APIs are very similar and map 1:1. The only one big difference
is that user has to perform activation manually after image file is
uploaded. I created a small table with the most popular API requests.
You may notice how similar both APIs are:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18Tqad0NUPyFfHUo1KMr6bDDISpQtzacvZtEQIGhNkf4/edit?usp=sharing
Other changes are rather cosmetic. For instance, "queued" image status
was renamed to "drafted".
Third, all these changes can be hidden in Glare client. So if we try a
little, we can achieve 100% compatibility there, and other projects can
use Glare client instead of Glance's without even noticing the differences.
I think we should definitely not do this... I think instead, if we
decide to go down this road, we want to look at adding an endpoint to
glare that speaks glance v2 API so that users can have a transition
period while libraries and tools get updated to understand the artifacts
API.
If projects use Glance without client, it means that some direct API
requests will need to be rewritten. But in any case, the number of
differences between Glance v1 and Glance v2 was much larger, and we
switched pretty smoothly. So I hope everything will be fine here, too.
v1 vs v2 is still a major headache for end users. I don't think it's ok
for us to do that to our users again if we can help it.
However, as you said, conceptually the calls are very similar so making
an API controller that can be registered in the catalog as "image"
should be fairly easy to do, no?
Best,
Mike Fedosin
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@fastmail.com
<mailto:harlo...@fastmail.com>> wrote:
Ed Leafe wrote:
On Jul 10, 2017, at 5:06 AM, Mikhail Fedosin <mfedo...@gmail.com
<mailto:mfedo...@gmail.com>
<mailto:mfedo...@gmail.com <mailto:mfedo...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Given all the advantages and features of Glare, I believe
that it can
become the successful drop-in replacement.
Can you clarify this? Let’s assume I have a decent-sized deployment
running Glance. If I were to remove Glance and replace it with
Glare,
are you saying that nothing would break? Operators, users, scripts,
SDKs, etc., would all work unchanged?
Sounds interesting,
Is there some kind of glance-compat API?
-- Ed Leafe
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
<http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
<http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
__________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
