Sam, The problem is that we don't have something concrete on the wiki that has the following properties: 1. (a) is agreed on OR (b) is a clear proposal 2. has consensus meaning support from multiple parties willing to implement and use - we don't want 'outsiders' we want convergence I am trying to PROPOSE a concrete course of action. I really truly appreciate the work you are putting in, especially the drive to work with EH and Andy from SLA@SOI. But I don't see that work necessarily conflicting with what I am proposing. As as aside, with all due respect: It does not help when you say, one week, "it really doesn't get any simpler than this" and then simplify it and again say "it really doesn't get any simpler than this". Please try to understand that we don't have full unimpeded access to all your thought processes, and consensus will arise from your clarifying them. Instead of chucking around phrases like 'vendor capture' and 'rubber stamping', why don't you tell us what Sun, GoGrid, etc, don't do to meet your requirement. Then we can make a better open document that meets the needs of multiple providers and users, and has their consensual buy in and support. We have the pieces of the puzzle right in front of us. If you object to my proposal then propose an alternative! alexis On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@sun.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Sam Johnston wrote:
<XXX, doesn't matter what> isn't going to work and is a huge step backwards from where we are now anyway.
Where are you now anyway? Facing a glaring lack of consensus on pretty well everything. I'd be careful about characterizing anything as a step back.
Actually the only thing we don't have consensus on is whether or not to follow the leaders (Google, Microsoft, IBM) in adopting Atom, and I've already given up on the idea of using it across the board anyway (for better or worse).
It's now 3am where I am and I've been on and off the phone all night with Andy getting ourselves in sync (we are, after all, doing the lion's share of the work). We've come to the conclusion that a simple key-value format originally proposed by ElasticHosts is feasible if supported by HTTP (for individual resources) and/or Atom (for collections of resources) for the meta-model. This is basically illustrated in the wiki and is a significant simplification/improvement on what I had previously proposed - at least all the extra discussion has been useful.
As it's key-value (links, categories, etc. are delegated to the underlying protocol(s)) we have a further optimisation of being able to use HTML forms directly - so a client need not even understand the OCCI representation(s) if it knows how to submit a form. It really doesn't get any easier than that and we get the ability to submit e.g. OVF/OVA files for free - I'm guessing (hoping) the ElasticHosts guys will be happy when they get back from their long weekend as it was their feedback that primarily drove the revision.
All technical issues aside, and speaking as an outsider, I'd advise members of this group to rally around whatever your co-chairs propose, because they're trying to get you from nowhere to somewhere. -Tim
Having worked on this project full time and then some since March I take some amount of offense to your claim that we are "nowhere", especially considering that the proposal you're supporting "as an outsider" to get "somewhere" is the adoption and rubber stamping of your own API (not forgetting that one of the two co-chairs who "strongly supports this course of action" happens to be another Sun employee). If that ends up being the case even in light of the unresolved patent problems first raised over 2 months ago then I'll be out of here quicker than you can say "vendor capture".
Sam
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg