On 07/27/2016 04:42 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov> wrote:
Its not an "end user" facing thing, but it is an "operator" facing thing.
Well, the end user for Kolla is an operator, no?
I deploy kolla containers today on non kolla managed systems in production, and
rely on that api being consistent.
I'm positive I'm not the only operator doing this either. This sounds like a
consumable api to me.
I don’t think that an API has to be RESTful to be considered an interface for
we should avoid duplication.
Application *Programming* Interface. There's nothing that is being
*programmed* or *called* in Kolla's image definitions.
What Kolla is/has is not an API. As Stephen said, it's more of an
Application Binary Interface (ABI). It's not really an ABI, though, in
the traditional sense of the term that I'm used to.
It's an agreed set of package bases, installation procedures/directories
and configuration recipes for OpenStack and infrastructure components.
I see no reason for the OpenStack community to standardize on those
things, frankly. It's like asking RedHat and Canonical to agree to "just
use RPM" as their package specification format. I wonder how that
conversation would go.
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
