Re: [Openstack] Image API v2 Draft 4

2012-04-09 Thread Jorge Williams
Justin, >From a JAX-RS / Java persecutive, starting with an XML schema and having that >dictate what the JSON will look like -- doesn't just make sense -- it makes >life *A LOT* easier. And a lot of services written in Java do just that. >Unfortunately, as you pointed out, this approach has

Re: [Openstack] Image API v2 Draft 4

2012-04-09 Thread Jorge Williams
On Apr 9, 2012, at 6:03 PM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote: How about we discuss this further at the summit :-) I think that's a sensible proposal. We're not likely to reach a good conclusion here. I think my viewpoint is that even json-dressed-as-xml is fine; no end-user gives two hoots what ou

Re: [Openstack] Image API v2 Draft 4

2012-04-10 Thread Jorge Williams
I'm also a strong supporter of XML. XML does a good job of lowering barriers for a key group of clients, specifically those that work with statically typed languages. It offers key benefits in terms of extensibility and validation. I'd hate to lose it. -jOrGe W. On Apr 10, 2012, at 12:57 PM,

Re: [Openstack] Image API v2 Draft 4

2012-04-12 Thread Jorge Williams
Generally, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I want to point out a couple of things: 1. Static language folks gravitate to XML, not simply because they're invested in it, but because it solves a real problem: In a static language, I want to to say something like: myServer.name = "

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

2012-04-13 Thread Jorge Williams
On Apr 13, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > [ Full disclosure -- I'm using my personal address with Launchpad, etc., but > I work for Rackspace. ] > > On 12/04/2012, at 7:28 PM, Jorge Williams wrote: > >> Generally, I agree with a lot of what you're

Re: [Openstack] Just JSON, and extensibility

2012-04-13 Thread Jorge Williams
On Apr 13, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote: My understanding is that the solution we have now is that any extension goes into its own namespace; we assign a prefix to the namespace and have a way to map that prefix to the full namespace. (Similar to XML schemas). Currently prefi

Re: [Openstack] Keystone service catalogue has non-core services?

2012-05-29 Thread Jorge Williams
Hey Liem, We had a brief conversation about this at the summit. Ec2 and volume are core services not extension services -- this was described in a wiki somewhere. Carlos has gone through the contracts cleaned them up and updated them to reflect reality -- and they include this particular cha

Re: [Openstack] Nova API Specification

2012-05-30 Thread Jorge Williams
On May 30, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Day, Phil wrote: Hi Folks, I was looking for the full definition of the API requests, and I’m a tad confused by what I find here: http://api.openstack.org/ Specifically for Server Create there is both and “Server – Create” and “Server – Extended Create”, although

Re: [Openstack] WADL [was: v3 API draft (update and questions to the community)]

2012-06-15 Thread Jorge Williams
Totally agree. Note that we are using WADL today to create documentation artifacts. So http://api.openstack.org/ is generated from WADLs as are good chunks of the books on http://docs.openstack.org/. We're also using WADL for validation and testing at Rackspace internally, and I'm sure othe

Re: [Openstack] WADL [was: v3 API draft (update and questions to the community)]

2012-06-15 Thread Jorge Williams
All of the XSDs produced so far use XSD 1.1. -jOrGe W. On Jun 15, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Christopher B Ferris wrote: +1 Over-reliance on WADL will only make it more challenging to gracefully evolve the APIs such that implementations can be forwards and/or backwards compatible, especially when exc

Re: [Openstack] [keystone] Rate limit middleware

2012-07-11 Thread Jorge Williams
More info on the Repose rate limiter here: http://wiki.openrepose.org/display/REPOSE/Rate+Limiting+Filter The rate limiter has the concept of limit groups -- you can specify rate limits for a particular group -- then introspect the request to see which group applies. Typically a user can be pl

Re: [Openstack] Fwd: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Tokens representing authorization to projects/tenants in the Keystone V3 API

2012-10-22 Thread Jorge Williams
+1 here too. At the end of the day, we'd like the identity API to be flexible enough to allow the token to be scoped in a manner that the deployer sees fit. What the keystone implementation does by default is a different matter -- and disabling multiple tenant scope by default would be fine b

Re: [Openstack] Fwd: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Tokens representing authorization to projects/tenants in the Keystone V3 API

2012-10-22 Thread Jorge Williams
Are you guys +1 ing the original Idea, my suggestion to make it optional, the fact that I think we should call these sloppy tokens? On 10/22/2012 03:40 PM, Jorge Williams wrote: +1 here too. At the end of the day, we'd like the identity API to be flexible enough to allow the token to be

Re: [Openstack] Fwd: [openstack-dev] [keystone] Tokens representing authorization to projects/tenants in the Keystone V3 API

2012-10-23 Thread Jorge Williams
I'm okay with "Starting Tokens". -jOrGe W. On Oct 23, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Adam Young wrote: On 10/23/2012 01:25 AM, Jorge Williams wrote: Here's my view: On making the default token a configuration option: Like the idea. Disabling the option by default. That's fine

Re: [Openstack] API Spec

2011-08-22 Thread Jorge Williams
Hi Vish, I don't have a problem moving the spec out of docs manuals and into another project even the nova repo. But, I do have a number of issues with the approach that you're proposing. First, I think that fundamentally there should be a decoupling of the spec and the implementation. If y

Re: [Openstack] API Spec

2011-08-22 Thread Jorge Williams
#x27;t useful enough to expose through the API, why are we including it in trunk? Christopher MacGown Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. w: (650) 24-CLOUD m: (415) 300-0944 ch...@pistoncloud.com<mailto:ch...@pistoncloud.com> On Aug 22, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Jorge Williams wrote: Hi Vish, I don

Re: [Openstack] API Spec

2011-08-22 Thread Jorge Williams
Comments inline On Aug 22, 2011, at 9:05 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > Inline > On Aug 22, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Jorge Williams wrote: > >> Hi Vish, >> >> I don't have a problem moving the spec out of docs manuals and into another >> project even the n

Re: [Openstack] API Spec

2011-08-22 Thread Jorge Williams
On Aug 22, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > Inline > > On Aug 22, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > >> It may be just me, but having DocBookXML in the source tree is hideous >> to me. Not only does it clutter the source tree with non-RST >> documentation, but as you know, review

Re: [Openstack] API Spec

2011-08-22 Thread Jorge Williams
On Aug 22, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Jay Pipes mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote: > ++ > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jorge Williams > mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> wrote: >> Hi Vish, >> I don't have a problem moving the spec out of docs manuals

Re: [Openstack] API Spec

2011-08-22 Thread Jorge Williams
deprecated, how long does backwards > compatibility stay in place? > > Thanks, > Thor W > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jan Drake wrote: >> +1 >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 22, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: >> >>> ++ >>

Re: [Openstack] API Spec

2011-08-23 Thread Jorge Williams
features that may not get common support across service providers, and because no one will bother using those clients anyway. Christopher MacGown Piston Cloud Computing, Inc. w: (650) 24-CLOUD m: (415) 300-0944 ch...@pistoncloud.com<mailto:ch...@pistoncloud.com> On Aug 22, 2011, at 9:18 PM

Re: [Openstack] API Spec

2011-08-23 Thread Jorge Williams
I'd love to keep you on as a reviewer Anne, having you in the loop is really helpful -- I don't want to lose that aspect of it. I agree that we need a better governance model. +1 on separate repos for books though that doesn't necessarily have to be 1:1. -jOrGe W. On Aug 23, 2011, at 10:19 AM

Re: [Openstack] API Spec

2011-08-23 Thread Jorge Williams
capabilities can be tested before they make it to the core. -jOrGe W. On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Soren Hansen wrote: > 2011/8/23 Jorge Williams : >> Imagine >> that Rackspace comes up with a feature to perform backups and places it in >> /backups. HP comes up with it

Re: [Openstack] API Spec

2011-08-24 Thread Jorge Williams
at I really care where it lives, I just don't remember talking about it. > > 2011/8/23 Jorge Williams : >> I don't have a problem moving the spec out of docs manuals and into another >> project even the nova repo. But, I do have a number of issues with the >&g

Re: [Openstack] API Spec

2011-08-25 Thread Jorge Williams
On Aug 24, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Soren Hansen wrote: 2011/8/24 Jorge Williams mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>>: Let me start by saying that I have no idea why we're having this discussion again. We talked about it at the design summit and we agreed we'd move forward in pretty

Re: [Openstack] Guidelines for OpenStack APIs

2011-09-19 Thread Jorge Williams
On 9/19/11 1:03 AM, "Mark McLoughlin" wrote: >The spec is actually quite clear on the different between PUT and POST: > > "The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is > reflected in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The URI in a > POST request identifies the res

Re: [Openstack] Guidelines for OpenStack APIs

2011-09-22 Thread Jorge Williams
Starting from a set of goals makes sense to me as well. I had put together a sample set of goals for the PPB proposal a week or so ago and some sample guidelines. You can find them here. Standards for standards sake don't make sense to me either. http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/Proposed/API

[Openstack] Repose now on GitHub

2011-10-03 Thread Jorge Williams
Thanks to all who attended our chat Repose today. Just wanted to send a quick message to let you know that the code is available today on GitHub! https://github.com/rackspace/repose -jOrGe W. This email may include confidential information. If you received it in error, please delete it. ___

Re: [Openstack] Guidelines for OpenStack APIs

2011-10-11 Thread Jorge Williams
++ Like the idea..yes I think we should aim to include all OpenStack APIs -- whatever that means :-) -jOrGe W. On Oct 11, 2011, at 9:52 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 16:11 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> +1 (sorry for

Re: [Openstack] Some updates to REST API specs

2011-10-20 Thread Jorge Williams
We had extend discussions about the HTTP error code that we retuned for rate limiting while discussing the compute API. The issue is that we allow users to discover and query their rate limits. So an over-limit response should be in the 400 range because we see it as a client error. None of t

Re: [Openstack] OSAPI equivalent of euca-get-console-output ?

2011-10-21 Thread Jorge Williams
Moving forward this should be exposed in something like /servers/{id}/rax/console to avoid conflicts. -jOrGe W. On Oct 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Glen Campbell wrote: At Rackspace, we have developed an extension that returns the URL of a console via /servers/{id}/console. The issue for putting thi

Re: [Openstack] describing APIs for OpenStack consumers

2011-10-25 Thread Jorge Williams
We've done quite a bit of work to get high quality documentation from a WADL, in fact we are using some of this today. We've taken most of the hard work re: parsing the WADL, at least for the purpose of generating docs from it and of writing code that can read it (though that later part can us

Re: [Openstack] describing APIs for OpenStack consumers

2011-10-25 Thread Jorge Williams
Hi Nati, I've actually fixed some of the issues you're describing but haven't had a chance to check these in. Let's talk about the issues you're seeing off line and combine our efforts. -jOrGe W. On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Nati Ueno wrote: > Hi Joe, Anne > > I'm working on WADL of Openst

Re: [Openstack] describing APIs for OpenStack consumers

2011-10-25 Thread Jorge Williams
Some of that dev guide documentation is generated from a WADL :-) The purpose of a WADL is that it is machine readable so it opens up a lot of possibilities, for creating docs, testing, validation, etc. -jOrGe W. On Oct 25, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Daryl Walleck wrote: Hi everyone, This is just my

Re: [Openstack] describing APIs for OpenStack consumers

2011-10-25 Thread Jorge Williams
: Which dev docs and how? I haven't spotted those scripts or systems... -joe On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jorge Williams wrote: Some of that dev guide documentation is generated from a WADL :-) The purpose of a WADL is that it is machine readable so it opens up a lot of possibili

Re: [Openstack] describing APIs for OpenStack consumers

2011-10-25 Thread Jorge Williams
Totally agree. The goal is to create narrative documents that devs can read etc. The WADL is just there to fill in the nitty gritty details in a consistent way. -jOrGe W. On Oct 25, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Caitlin Bestler wrote: WADL sounds like a wonderful validation tool. But shouldn’t our prim

Re: [Openstack] describing APIs for OpenStack consumers

2011-10-25 Thread Jorge Williams
00 lines script. > > I used lxml.objectify > http://lxml.de/objectify.html > > You can read wadl as python object. > It is very easy to generate something from the WADL if you know WADL > structures. > > xsd_root = objectify.parse("PATH2WADL").getroot() > x

Re: [Openstack] describing APIs for OpenStack consumers

2011-10-25 Thread Jorge Williams
The WADL should be complete for Nova. There are a couple of error fixes that I've completed but haven't pushed up yet. I'll try to get to those tomorrow and I'll look over Nachi's contributions as well. What's not done in Nova is documenting all of the extensions. I'm working on that and wil

Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs

2011-10-26 Thread Jorge Williams
I don't mind generating a WADL so long as we have a good expressive tool for doing so. I haven't found one yet. There was a project a while back for doing so called "Rest Described and Compile" that seemed to be heading in the right direction, but it hasn't been worked on in a while. http://to

Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs

2011-10-26 Thread Jorge Williams
++Totally agree with that approach. Looking forward to looking over the Images 2.0 API :-) -jOrGe W. On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Mellquist, Peter > wrote: >> The topic of when an API should be defined is also important. Do we define >> an

Re: [Openstack] API Versioning and Extensibility

2011-10-26 Thread Jorge Williams
On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Bryan Taylor wrote: So no pdfs or excel spreadsheets without conneg. But PDFs and excel spreadsheets are precisely why you want variants! "Here's my usage stats for 2009... http://usage.api.acme.com/v1.0/jorgew/2009/usage.pdf"; You mean to tell me that I can't sen

Re: [Openstack] API Versioning and Extensibility

2011-10-27 Thread Jorge Williams
Response inline: On Oct 27, 2011, at 12:50 AM, Bryan Taylor wrote: > On 10/26/2011 04:45 PM, Jorge Williams wrote: >> >> On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Bryan Taylor wrote: >> >>> So no pdfs or excel spreadsheets without conneg. >> >> But PDFs and exc

Re: [Openstack] API Versioning and Extensibility

2011-10-27 Thread Jorge Williams
On Oct 27, 2011, at 8:56 AM, George Reese wrote: On Oct 27, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Jorge Williams wrote: Response inline: On Oct 27, 2011, at 12:50 AM, Bryan Taylor wrote: On 10/26/2011 04:45 PM, Jorge Williams wrote: On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Bryan Taylor wrote: So no pdfs or excel

Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs

2011-10-27 Thread Jorge Williams
As I stated in previous emails, we are pulling data from the WADL to grab human-consumable REST API docs that live at docs.openstack.org today. We can certainly expand that capability to create a unified API documentation set rather than individual guides. A lot of

Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs

2011-10-27 Thread Jorge Williams
oal isn't to make, parse, or manually read WADL's - it's to make this set of web pages. If WADL helps me get there expediently, I'm all over it. -joe On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:03 AM, Jorge Williams wrote: As I stated in previous emails, we are pulling data from the WADL t

Re: [Openstack] Push vs Polling (from Versioning Thread)

2011-10-28 Thread Jorge Williams
On Oct 28, 2011, at 8:11 AM, George Reese wrote: Push notifications don't make your core system any more complex. You push the change to a message queue and rely on another system to do the work. The other system is scalable. It has no need to be stateless and can be run in an on-demand format

Re: [Openstack] Push vs Polling (from Versioning Thread)

2011-10-28 Thread Jorge Williams
On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:33 AM, George Reese wrote: > You are describing an all-purpose system, not one that supports the narrow > needs of IaaS state notifications. > > There's no reason in this scenario to guarantee message delivery. Like I said, there are a lot of factors to consider. And

Re: [Openstack] Push vs Polling (from Versioning Thread)

2011-10-28 Thread Jorge Williams
Huh? I didn't write that. George did. On Oct 28, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Caitlin Bestler wrote: > Jorge Williams wrote: > >> Push notifications don't make your core system any more complex. You push >> the change to a message queue and rely on another system to do the

Re: [Openstack] Nova-API Team Meeting Notes

2011-11-04 Thread Jorge Williams
Thoughts on v1.1 -> v2 rename. 1. As stated: URI changes /v1.1/ to /v2/ though we keep redirecting 1.1 requests to v2.0. 2. Mime type accepts version=2 as a parameter but still responds to version=1.1 so the following will remain valid mimeTypes: a) application/vnd.openstack.compute+x

Re: [Openstack] OSAPI and Zones

2011-11-14 Thread Jorge Williams
Last time I had a conversation about this, I believe the goal was to refractor and document Zone support as an extension to the core API. We're just not there yet. -jOrGe W. On Nov 14, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Doude wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to understand the multi-zone architecture of OpenSt

Re: [Openstack] describing APIs for OpenStack consumers

2011-11-14 Thread Jorge Williams
The core API WADL is here: https://github.com/openstack/compute-api/blob/master/openstack-compute-api-1.1/src/os-compute-1.1.wadl Keystone also has a number of WADLs here: https://github.com/openstack/keystone/tree/master/keystone/content -jOrGe W. On Nov 14, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Rupak Ganguly wr

Re: [Openstack] OSAPI and Zones

2011-11-15 Thread Jorge Williams
Inline: On Nov 15, 2011, at 3:36 AM, Doude wrote: > Thanks a lot for your answers. > > But why do you want to move the Zone code into the extension part ? > It's a core part of OpenStack, why it doesn't stay in the core code ? If something is in core then it's guaranteed to be available always.

[Openstack] Extension Documentation

2011-12-08 Thread Jorge Williams
Hi All, I've started putting together a site to hold extension documentation. You can see it here: http://docs.rackspace.com/openstack-extensions/ The idea is to have a repository for all extensions, whether the extension is an OpenStack extension or a vendor specific extension. It makes sen

Re: [Openstack] Extension Documentation

2011-12-16 Thread Jorge Williams
Inline: -Original Message- From: Anne Gentle Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 08:17:15 -0600 To: Jorge Williams Cc: "openstack@lists.launchpad.net (openstack@lists.launchpad.net)" Subject: Re: [Openstack] Extension Documentation >Hi everyone - >Overall I support this effort and h

Re: [Openstack] Extension Documentation

2011-12-16 Thread Jorge Williams
for integration are >>> welcomed. >>> 8. We need a discussion about who will review these extension >>> submissions and ensure they get built. >>> >>> Based on the struggle to get these docs written, I also want to know >>> if you all find the t

Re: [Openstack] Automatically confirmed after 24 hours on Resize API

2011-12-27 Thread Jorge Williams
I'm with Waldon on this. This is a spec...the implementation hasnt caught up. Sent from my Motorola Smartphone on the Now Network from Sprint! -Original message- From: Brian Waldon To: Anne Gentle Cc: "openstack@lists.launchpad.net" Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2011 10:20:30 CST Subject: Re:

Re: [Openstack] Configure Rate limits on OS API

2012-01-10 Thread Jorge Williams
Hi Blake, Repose is capable of rate limiting based on group. It also supports querying limits and maintaining the limits consistent even as nodes are scaled horizontally. You can find the code on git hub: https://github.com/rackspace/repose Here's the presentation I gave on the subject on Es

Re: [Openstack] Supporting start/stop compute api from OpenStack API

2012-01-17 Thread Jorge Williams
Tomoe, Once you get the extension up and running you'd want to document it :-) There are a set of templates for documenting the extension here: https://github.com/RackerWilliams/extension-doc-templates More (high level) details on API extensions here: http://docs.rackspace.com/openstack-extens

Re: [Openstack] WADL for compute API v1.1

2012-01-25 Thread Jorge Williams
They should point to the correct links. I believe that the PDFs and WADL are published on docs.openstack.org, and the links should point to the artifacts there. Or you can do what keystone is doing and host the stuff locally. -jOrGe W. On Jan 25, 2012, at 10:08 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > >

Re: [Openstack] WADL for compute API v1.1

2012-01-25 Thread Jorge Williams
I don't think that it would be too nasty given the way that Anne has structured: https://github.com/openstack/compute-api Where we have a different directory for each version of the API. -jOrGe W. On Jan 25, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: > > >> So I was wondering whether there was a

Re: [Openstack] Keystone: is revoke token API "officially" supported

2012-01-26 Thread Jorge Williams
Moving it to an extension makes sense to me. Ziad, does it make sense to add it to OS-KSADM...or is this a different extension all together...revoke token extension? -jOrGe W. On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Dolph Mathews wrote: It is definitely not a documented call (hence the "should this be

Re: [Openstack] Keystone: is revoke token API "officially" supported

2012-01-26 Thread Jorge Williams
xtension like this. I'd still lean towards the "correct" practice of adding this as another extension. Especially since that extension would only be adding a new method on an existing resource, so would not require complex naming changes… Open to alternative poin

Re: [Openstack] Keystone: is revoke token API "officially" supported

2012-01-26 Thread Jorge Williams
nly be adding a new method on an existing resource, so would not require complex naming changes… Open to alternative points of view.. Z From: Jorge Williams mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:36:13 -0600 To: Dolph Mathews mailto:dolph.math...@gmail.com>>

Re: [Openstack] Keystone: is revoke token API "officially" supported

2012-01-26 Thread Jorge Williams
ws mailto:dolph.math...@gmail.com>> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:17:12 -0600 To: Ziad Sawalha mailto:ziad.sawa...@rackspace.com>> Cc: Jorge Williams mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>>, Dolph Mathews mailto:dolph.math...@gmail.com>>, "Yee, Guang" mailto:guang@hp.c

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Java API

2012-02-21 Thread Jorge Williams
Some thoughts, Using the binding to generate WADLs and XSDs would definitely be useful -- especially since a lot of the extensions are currently undocumented. Certainly we can use these as a starting point for our documentation efforts. Keep in mind, though, that extensions are optional and th

Re: [Openstack] Architecture for Shared Components

2010-07-31 Thread Jorge Williams
Guys, I like this idea a lot. I hadn't thought about the concept of using a language binding to communicate with upstream proxies, but it makes sense. Being able to purge something from an HTTP cache by simply making a "purge" call in whatever language I'm using to write my API is a win. Tha

Re: [Openstack] Architecture for Shared Components

2010-08-02 Thread Jorge Williams
On Aug 2, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Eric Day wrote: > Hi Jorge, Michael, > > Yeah, this is pretty much what I had in mind. Beyond having services > that get called out from APIs, the implementation within the projects > should not be specific as well. For example, there should be a generic > auth API t

Re: [Openstack] Architecture for Shared Components

2010-08-02 Thread Jorge Williams
On Aug 2, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Michael Gundlach wrote: Hi Jorge, On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Jorge Williams mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> wrote: Guys, I like this idea a lot. I hadn't thought about the concept of using a language binding to communicate with upstream p

Re: [Openstack] Architecture for Shared Components

2010-08-03 Thread Jorge Williams
On Aug 3, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Michael Gundlach wrote: Howdy Eric, On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Eric Day mailto:e...@oddments.org>> wrote: Hi Jorge, I think we may not be on the same page here. But I think we're getting close :) All three of us have slightly different approaches in mind, but

Re: [Openstack] Architecture for Shared Components

2010-08-04 Thread Jorge Williams
On Aug 3, 2010, at 6:26 PM, Eric Day wrote: > Hi Jorge, > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 05:34:59PM -0500, Jorge Williams wrote: >> I'm not that familiar with WSGI but it looks like you're proposing >> something similar to what I have above. >> >> W

Re: [Openstack] Architecture for Shared Components

2010-08-04 Thread Jorge Williams
On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Michael Gundlach wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Jorge Williams mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> wrote: Can you configure WSGI to split things up as needed for a particular deployment(?) WSGI itself doesn't provide that (it just defines a

Re: [Openstack] Architecture for Shared Components

2010-08-04 Thread Jorge Williams
On Aug 4, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Michael Gundlach wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Jorge Williams mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> wrote: You executed the configurations script to start the application. The app came bundled with a whole bunch of scripts that people could cus

Re: [Openstack] Architecture for Shared Components

2010-08-04 Thread Jorge Williams
#x27;s specific scripts in this project. - Michael On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Jorge Williams mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> wrote: On Aug 4, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Michael Gundlach wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Jorge Williams mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>&g

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack core components library

2010-08-27 Thread Jorge Williams
On Aug 26, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Erik Carlin wrote: Jorge, I know you have some ideas about a binding "framework" that could be used to build bindings in a common manner. Could you please share your ideas with the group? Sure, We're aiming for consistency with our public APIs so that: 1) Collect

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack core components library

2010-08-28 Thread Jorge Williams
On Aug 28, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Michael Barton wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Jorge Williams mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> wrote: Sure, We're aiming for consistency with our public APIs so that: 1) Collections are handled consistently a) Pagination works the

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack core components library

2010-08-28 Thread Jorge Williams
On Aug 28, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Gregory Holt wrote: > On Aug 28, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Jorge Williams wrote: > >> I see standardization as being extremely beneficial. Having a common >> language framework is one example of how standardization can help us, but >> it'

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack core components library

2010-08-28 Thread Jorge Williams
onal benefits to us standardizing at the protocol anyway. -jOrGe W. On Aug 28, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Gregory Holt wrote: > On Aug 28, 2010, at 12:29 PM, Jorge Williams wrote: > >> I strongly disagree with the idea of us maintaining multiple same-language >> bindings for a single se

Re: [Openstack] Easy API

2010-12-30 Thread Jorge Williams
Hi Andy, The delegated auth pattern in Easy API seems to match our existing blueprint for authentication in OpenStack. blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-authn spec: http://wiki.openstack.org/openstack-authn Have you taken a look at the blueprint? Are we on the same p

Re: [Openstack] Easy API

2010-12-30 Thread Jorge Williams
ecific implementation pattern of an authentication component as fits the needs of, for example, rackspace or some other provider with a similar scheme that sits in front of the API. --andy On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Jorge Williams mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> wrote:

Re: [Openstack] [RFC] OpenStack API

2010-12-30 Thread Jorge Williams
On Dec 30, 2010, at 1:59 PM, John Purrier wrote: Jorge, you will need to let folks see the proposed updates to the OpenStack API for version 1.1. Absolutely, I will post the spec once we settle on the new set of API features. The API extension mechanism and the transition to the OpenStack n

Re: [Openstack] [RFC] OpenStack API

2010-12-30 Thread Jorge Williams
On Dec 30, 2010, at 3:43 PM, John Purrier wrote: Hi Sandy, the easy one first… the OpenStack API is versioned, and so is backward compatible. The client will negotiate the highest version it knows about, the API returns will be consistent with that version. Right. We create new versions only

Re: [Openstack] [RFC] OpenStack API

2010-12-31 Thread Jorge Williams
On Dec 31, 2010, at 5:28 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> John Purrier wrote: >>> 1. Bexar will present a version 1.0 OpenStack API based on the 1.0 >>> Rackspace Cloud Servers API. The OpenStack namespace will be set up and >>> published, an

Re: [Openstack] [RFC] OpenStack Scope and projects

2010-12-31 Thread Jorge Williams
On Dec 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Ewan Mellor wrote: Why include C / C++ as “blessed” languages, when we’re not using them at the moment? I see no reason that they should be called out any more than any other mainstream language (and frankly, I’ll be saddened if we start writing lots of C++, at le

Re: [Openstack] [RFC] OpenStack Scope and projects

2010-12-31 Thread Jorge Williams
ere REST simply won't work then let's talk about it specifically. I'm sure exemptions can be made for exceptional cases. -jOrGe W. Ewan. From: Jorge Williams [mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com] Sent: 31 December 2010 18:31 To: Ewan Mellor Cc: John Purrier; openstack@lists.

Re: [Openstack] [RFC] OpenStack API

2011-01-04 Thread Jorge Williams
I also agree. Just to be clear thought, we should make a distinction between internal API (devAPI) that's used by the developers of that particular service and the management API that may be used by an operator of a service OR by an orchestration service and is a proper "OpenStack API" with ve

Re: [Openstack] [RFC] OpenStack API

2011-01-04 Thread Jorge Williams
nStack Framework Model thread. Cheers P.S : Do we already have a blueprint for this ? Original Message ---- Subject: Re: [Openstack] [RFC] OpenStack API From: Jorge Williams mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> Date: Tue, January 04, 2011 1:39 pm To: Vishvananda Ishaya mailto:

Re: [Openstack] [RFC] OpenStack API

2011-01-08 Thread Jorge Williams
On Jan 8, 2011, at 9:47 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote: > Hi! > > I just read the EasyAPI BP and, from a technical perspective, seems rational > and sound. The challenge, of course, are the implications for the business > side of the house. I realize it doesn't make sense to strive for backward > comp

Re: [Openstack] Pondering multi-tenant needs in nova.

2011-02-07 Thread Jorge Williams
Indeed, each Open Stack service (object-store, compute, ...) should only contain operational data and it should push audit events to external systems. Pushing billing/audit data outside of nova provides a flexible approach that allows operators to perform optimizations according to their own n

Re: [Openstack] Pondering multi-tenant needs in nova.

2011-02-07 Thread Jorge Williams
On Feb 7, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > What if I don't want to get "my" servers only? What if I want to list > another organization's servers, and that organization's child > organizations' servers? That sort of information and those sort of quires fall within the realm of configuration

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Compute API 1.1

2011-02-14 Thread Jorge Williams
On Feb 14, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > The reason I haven't responded yet is because it's difficult for me to: > > diff -u some.pdf other.pdf > > In all seriousness, the wiki spec page says this about the differences > in the 1.1 OpenStack API: > I'll work with Anne to make the sour

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Compute API 1.1

2011-02-14 Thread Jorge Williams
On Feb 14, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jorge Williams > wrote: >> On Feb 14, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: >> I'll work with Anne to make the source documents available to you guys so >> you can do a diff etc. Give me

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Compute API 1.1

2011-02-15 Thread Jorge Williams
Additional comments inline: On Feb 14, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Paul Voccio wrote: Thoughts below: From: Justin Santa Barbara mailto:jus...@fathomdb.com>> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:32:52 -0800 To: mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Compute API 1.1 Some thoughts..

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Compute API 1.1

2011-02-15 Thread Jorge Williams
Additional comments inline: On Feb 14, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Paul Voccio wrote: Thoughts below From: Justin Santa Barbara mailto:jus...@fathomdb.com>> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:40:04 -0800 To: Paul Voccio mailto:paul.voc...@rackspace.com>> Cc: "openstack@lists.launchpad.net

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Compute API 1.1

2011-02-15 Thread Jorge Williams
On Feb 15, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote: How would this work if someone didn't run a volume service or glance? Should the api listen for that? My expectation is that if someone didn't run a volume service, we should expose that just as if there were insufficient resources (be

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Compute API 1.1 ‹ server actions

2011-02-16 Thread Jorge Williams
I like idea of scheduling actions overall. The idea of a generic scheduling service also appeals to me a lot. The question is how do you generalize the service. I'd love to see your write up. -jOrGe W. On Feb 16, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Adrian Otto wrote: Glen, I definitely recognize the value

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Compute API 1.1

2011-02-18 Thread Jorge Williams
There are lots of advantages: 1) It allows services to be more autonomous, and gives us clearly defined service boundaries. Each service can be treated as a black box. 2) All service communication becomes versioned, not just the public API but also the admin API. This means looser coupling whic

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Compute API 1.1

2011-02-18 Thread Jorge Williams
On Feb 18, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > Hi Jorge! Thanks for the detailed response. Comments inline. :) > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Jorge Williams > wrote: >> There are lots of advantages: >> >> 1) It allows services to be more autonomous

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Compute API 1.1

2011-02-18 Thread Jorge Williams
t keeps us from consuming the same dog food we're selling, and I'm afraid it may lead to added work for service teams. -jay On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jorge Williams mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> wrote: On Feb 18, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: Hi Jorge

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack Compute API 1.1

2011-02-18 Thread Jorge Williams
I think I understand your confusing Justin. Extensions are not there to bind APIs together. The examples I gave were probably a bit misleading. Extensions are there to support niche functionality and to allow developers to innovate without having to wait for some centralized group to approve.

Re: [Openstack] server affinity

2011-03-02 Thread Jorge Williams
Metadata in the OpenStack Compute/Cloud Servers API is meant to describe user defined properties. That's it. So in that case, I agree with Brian that we shouldn't be overloading that functionality by performing some action based on user-defined metadata. Speaking more generally though, any a

  1   2   >