On 01/27/2016 10:51 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 01/27/2016 12:53 PM, gordon chung wrote: >>> It makes for a crappy user experience. Crappier than the crappy user >>> experience that OpenStack API users already have because we have done a >>> crappy job shepherding projects in order to make sure there isn't >>> overlap between their APIs (yes, Ceilometer and Monasca, I'm looking >>> directly at you). >> ... yes, Ceilometer can easily handle your events and meters and store >> them in either Elasticsearch or Gnocchi for visualisations. you just >> need to create a new definition in our mapping files[1][2]. you will >> definitely want to coordinate the naming of your messages. ie. >> event_type == backup.<ekko_scope> and event_type == >> backup.<freezer_scope>. > > This isn't at all what I was referring to, actually. I was referring to > my belief that we (the API WG, the TC, whatever...) have failed to > properly prevent almost complete and total overlap of the Ceilometer [1] > and Monasca [2] REST APIs. > > They are virtually identical in purpose, but in frustrating > slightly-inconsistent ways. and this means that users of the "OpenStack > APIs" have absolutely no idea what the "OpenStack Telemetry API" really is. > > Both APIs have /alarms as a top-level resource endpoint. One of them > refers to the alarm notification with /alarms, while the other refers to > the alarm definition with /alarms. > > One API has /meters as a top-level resource endpoint. The other uses > /metrics to mean the exact same thing. > > One API has /samples as a top-level resource endpoint. The other uses > /metrics/measurements to mean the exact same thing. > > One API returns a list JSON object for list results. The other returns a > dict JSON object with a "links" key and an "elements" key. > > And the list goes on... all producing a horrible non-unified, > overly-complicated and redundant experience for our API users. >
I agree with you here Jay, Monasca is a great example of failure in having consistency across OpenStack projects. It's a different topic but maybe a retrospective of what happened could help our community to not reproduce the same mistakes again. Please do not repeat this failure for other projects. Do not duplicate efforts: if Ekko has a similar mission statement, maybe we should avoid creating a new project and contribute to Freezer? (I'm probably missing some technical bits so tell me if I'm wrong) As an operator, I don't want see 2 OpenStack projects solving the same issue. As a developer, I don't want to implement the same feature in 2 different projects. If we have (again) 2 projects with the same mission statement, I think we'll waste time & resources, and eventually isolate people working on their own projects. I'm sure we don't want that. -- Emilien Macchi
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
