Hello everyone, tl;dr; I'm writing to request some feedback on whether the cross project Quotas work should move ahead as a service or a library or going to a far extent I'd ask should this even be in a common repository, would projects prefer to implement everything from scratch in-tree? Should we limit it to a guideline spec?
But before I ask anymore, I want to specifically thank Doug Hellmann, Joshua Harlow, Davanum Srinivas, Sean Dague, Sean McGinnis and Andrew Laski for the early feedback that has helped provide some good shape to the already discussions. Some more context on what the happenings: We've this in progress spec [1] up for providing context and platform for such discussions. I will rephrase it to say that we plan to introduce a new 'entity' in the Openstack realm that may be a library or a service. Both concepts have trade-offs and the WG wanted to get more ideas around such trade-offs from the larger community. Service: This would entail creating a new project and will introduce managing tables for quotas for all the projects that will use this service. For example if Nova, Glance, and Cinder decide to use it, this 'entity' will be responsible for handling the enforcement, management and DB upgrades of the quotas logic for all resources for all three projects. This means less pain for projects during the implementation and maintenance phase, holistic view of the cloud and almost a guarantee of best practices followed (no clutter or guessing around what different projects are doing). However, it results into a big dependency; all projects rely on this one service for right enforcement, avoiding races (if do not incline on implementing some of that in-tree) and DB migrations/upgrades. It will be at the core of the cloud and prone to attack vectors, bugs and margin of error. Library: A library could be thought of in two different ways: 1) Something that does not deal with backed DB models, provides a generic enforcement and management engine. To think ahead a little bit it may be a ABC or even a few standard implementation vectors that can be imported into a project space. The project will have it's own API for quotas and the drivers will enforce different types of logic; per se flat quota driver or hierarchical quota driver with custom/project specific logic in project tree. Project maintains it's own DB and upgrades thereof. 2) A library that has models for DB tables that the project can import from. Thus the individual projects will have a handy outline of what the tables should look like, implicitly considering the right table values, arguments, etc. Project has it's own API and implements drivers in-tree by importing this semi-defined structure. Project maintains it's own upgrades but will be somewhat influenced by the common repo. Library would keep things simple for the common repository and sourcing of code can be done asynchronously as per project plans and priorities without having a strong dependency. On the other hand, there is a likelihood of re-implementing similar patterns in different projects with individual projects taking responsibility to keep things up to date. Attack vectors, bugs and margin of error are project responsibilities Third option is to avoid all of this and simply give guidelines, best practices, right packages to each projects to implement quotas in-house. Somewhat undesirable at this point, I'd say. But we're all ears! Thank you for reading and I anticipate more feedback. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/284454/ -- Thanks, Nikhil __________________________________________________________________________ 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
