Kolla is providing a public api for docker containers and kubernetes templates though. So its not just a deployment tool issue. Its not specifically rest, but does that matter?
Thanks, Kevin ________________________________________ From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 10:36 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off On 07/27/2016 10:10 AM, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 07/27/2016 09:59 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: >> On Jul 27, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@fastmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> Whether to have competing projects in the big tent was debated by >>>> the TC >>>> at the time and my recollection is that we decided that was a good >>>> thing >>>> -- if someone wanted to develop a Nova replacement, then let them do it >>>> in public with the community. It would either win or lose based on its >>>> merits. Why is this not something which can happen here as well? >>> >>> For real, I (or someone) can start a nova replacement without getting >>> rejected (or yelled at or ...) by the TC saying it's a competing >>> project??? Wow, this is news to me... >> >> No, you can’t start a Nova replacement and still call yourself OpenStack. >> >> The sense I have gotten over the years from the TC is that gratuitous >> competition is strongly discouraged. > > I seem to recall that back during the "big tent" discussion people were > talking about allowing competing projects that performed the same task, > and letting natural selection decide which one survived. > > For example, at > "http://www.joinfu.com/2014/09/answering-the-existential-question-in-openstack/"; > Jay Pipes said that being under the big tent should not mean that the > project is the only/best way to provide a specific function to OpenStack > users. > > On the other hand, the OpenStack new projects requirements *do* > explicitly state that "Where it makes sense, the project cooperates with > existing projects rather than gratuitously competing or reinventing the > wheel." > > Maybe it boils down to the definition of "gratuitous" competition. For the record I think I've always been clear that I don't see competition as a bad thing within the OpenStack ecosystem however I have always been a proponent of having a *single consistent REST API* for a particular service type. I think innovation should happen at the implementation layer, but the public HTTP APIs should be collated and reviewed for overlap and inconsistencies. This was why in the past I haven't raised a stink about multiple deployment tools, since there was no OpenStack HTTP API for deployment of OpenStack itself. But I have absolutely raised concerns over overlap of HTTP APIs, like is the case with Monasca and various Telemetry project APIs. Again, implementation diversity cool. Public HTTP API diversity, not cool. Best, -jay __________________________________________________________________________ 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
