First of all, congratulations to Ignacio, Tino and the UCM team on producing the first implementation of an OCCI draft - real progress and good work! I wasn't on the call, but have had a quick look through the links which Ignacio sent. One thing which this brings home to me is that there is still significant work to tie down unresolved areas the OCCI draft so that implementations will actually be interoperable. This isn't to criticize the UCM team at all - they have done a good job working from a draft specification and invented plausible mechanisms to fill gaps where they have found them. Nevertheless, I can see quite a few areas in the their draft specs which clearly (& necessarily) go beyond what the Sep 21 specification draft (the last which I read) had actually defined. Taking one example from their site: <COMPUTE> <NAME>MyCompute</NAME> <STORAGE> <SWAP size="1024" dev="sda2"/> <DISK image="ab5c9770-7ade-012c-f1d5-00254bd6f386" dev="sda1"/> <FS size="512" format="ext3" dev="sda3"/> </STORAGE> <NETWORK> <NIC network="23" ip="192.168.0.9"/> </NETWORK> </COMPUTE> This uses XML nesting to specify when storage and network resources and linked into a compute resource, and has solved several issues such as the local devices to be used for the storage resources and naming of interfaces. By contrast, the Sep 21 specification suggests having separate entries for each resource, and linking them together using mechanisms similar to the HTTP Link header (with no example given). The spec doesn't yet say anything about how local devices should be specified. Another example: UCM do not use any extra management verbs. http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-September/001235.html By contrast the Sep 21 spec hints that some will exist, but does not define any of them. My feeling is that the main areas where the UCM team have had to innovate their own solutions are very similar to the list of areas which I had previously highlighted as needing resolution in my mail: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/2009-September/001215.html However, I'd also be keen for the UCM team themselves to write down a list of the areas where they believe that they had to go beyond the actual written OCCI drafts to produce something workable. And I'd be equally keen for Sam to take a careful look through the UCM links below, identify every place that the UCM implementation doesn't look like what he had expected and tighten the draft in these areas to either the UCM solution or whatever he had intended to write but not yet written. Cheers, Richard. Ignacio Martin Llorente wrote:
Hi,
Because we are now (at 16:00 CEST) discussing the OpenNebula OCCI implementation, I am sending some links with relevant info:
- OpenNebula OCCI API Specification: http://www.opennebula.org/doku.php?id=documentation:rel1.4:occidd - Usage Guide: http://www.opennebula.org/doku.php?id=documentation:rel1.4:occiug
Cheers,
-- Ignacio M. Llorente, Full Professor (Catedratico): http://dsa-research.org/llorente DSA Research Group: web http://dsa-research.org and blog http://blog.dsa-research.org OpenNebula Open Source Toolkit for Cloud Computing: http://www.OpenNebula.org RESERVOIR European Project in Cloud Computing: http://www.reservoir-fp7.eu