More inline. I trimmed your agrees. On 2/18/11 10:27 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 5) Interested developers can get involved in only the services that >>they care about without worrying about other services. > >Not quite sure how this has to do with REST vs. AMQP... AMQP is simply >the communication protocol between internal Nova services (network, >compute, and volume) right now. Developers can currently get involved >in the services they want to without messing with the other services. I think means other services will have apis that sit on a different endpoint than compute. To talk to it, use the http interface instead of a queue message. > >> 6) We already have 3 APIs (nova, swift, glance), we need to do this >>kind of integration as it is, it makes sense for us to standardize on it. > >Unless I'm mistaken, we're not talking about APIs. We're talking about >protocols. AMQP vs. HTTP. Its a bit of both. To break out into separate apis we wouldn't use amqp to communicate between services. > >> We are certainly changing the way we are doing things, but I don't >>really think we are throwing away a lot of functionality. As PVO >>mentioned, things should work very similar to the way they are working >>now. You still have compute workers, you may still have an internal >>queue, the only difference is that cross-service communication is now >>happening by issuing REST calls. > >I guess I'm on the fence with this one. I agree that: > >* Having clear boundaries between services is A Good Thing >* Having versioning in the interfaces between services is A Good Thing > >I'm just not convinced that services shouldn't be able to communicate >on different protocols. REST over HTTP is a fine interface. Serialized >messages over AMQP is similarly a fine interface. The standardization >should occur at the *message* level, not the *protocol* level. REST >over HTTP, combined with the Atom Publishing Protocol, has those >messages already defined. Having standard message definitions that are >sent via AMQP seems to me to be the "missing link" in the >standardization process. Wouldn't you be designing the same thing over 2 interfaces then? You'd have to standardize on amqp and http? > >Just some thoughts, >jay _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
