Simon, Thank-you for your support. And if this is our goal, then let's take it seriously. It sounds easy but it isn't. Nothing beneficial is trivial; "simplicity and generality" is often hard to achieve. a On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Simon Wardley <simon.wardley@canonical.com> wrote:
Alexis,
I completely agree with you - 100%.
If you could achieve this, it would be very beneficial.
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 20:45 +0100, Alexis Richardson wrote:
All,
Please heed Simon's point:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Simon Wardley <simon.wardley@canonical.com> wrote:
That mostly works for me,
That's good, but we need to encourage everyone to stick to the same terminology and not go about creating new stuff.
In discussions with folks over the last few days, I have noticed a tendency to assume that OCCI is a premature exercise. The argument made is that creating an open (standard) API will either stifle innovation or simply miss the point, because clouds and cloud APIs are still evolving. A concomitant claim is that an open API will necessarily attempt to invent something new, or introduce complexity where it is unwarranted.
To such people, I have been saying: At this stage, we are not trying to invent anything. IMO: our focus is on carefully representing existing art, towards a progressively simpler model. At this time, this means codifying commonality across *existing* cloud APIs and models, at the IaaS layer. Our hope is that the result of this will be something very easy to implement, with only a few verbs, and a model that is obviously consistent with other standards.
The exact number of 'core' verbs is TBD - we don't yet agree on this - but my *own* hope is that the core OCCI spec is surprisingly short in pagelength if nothing else.
alexis -- Simon Wardley Software Services Manager, Canonical Ltd. TEL: +44 (0)207 630 2451 MOB : +44 (0)7972 911 449 TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com/swardley/