On 5/11/09 12:37 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis.richardson@gmail.com> wrote:
1. You adopt the OtherVendor API, which I assume you don't plan to do Would love to, but only adopting Amazon's would make sense at this point given their market leadership. We've put our API under a license that allows other providers to adopt ours, but we also recognize it wasn't really designed for another provider's needs.
2. You adopt the OCCI API, which would have commonality with other providers 3. You support the OCCI API for interop but provide, e.g., GG specific APIs and extensions, possibly in several styles
Not sure about the difference between these two. It seems fairly subtle to me, but #3 is absolutely what I've been advocating all along. I think vendors still need to compete. If the core is easily extensible then we can adopt it, but extend it for our particular needs. Over time as extensions make sense to move to the core they can. A tools vendor building on top of us will get the benefits of being able to support the core easily across vendors. Implementing some support for extensions will then not be as onerous.
In scenario 2 and 3, the customer can achieve interop with OtherVendor through the OCCI core. The big win comes when OtherVendor can be a large set of providers.
Yes.
Does this make sense? I would imagine that some folks would have a
Yes, it does. --Randy -- Randy Bias, VP Technology Strategy, GoGrid randyb@gogrid.com, (415) 939-8507 [mobile] BLOG: http://neotactics.com/blog, TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias