openstack team mailing list archive

[Jay Pipes <jaypipes@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Eric Day <eday@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:48:25PM -0500, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> I just don't want to end up with:
>>
>> os-describe-images
>> os-describe-image-attribute
>> os-describe-instances
>> os-describe-groups
>> os-describe-zones
>> os-describe-keypairs
>> os-describe-volumes
>> os-describe-snapshots
>>
>> The above is asinine, IMO.
>
> Completely agree. :)

Cool. Was starting to lose my mind thinking people *really* wanted to
duplicate the eucatools mess...

>> If you want to have an os-compute and an os-network CLI tool, cool,
>> but I think that:
>>
>> os-compute describe images
>> os-compute describe image-attribute
>> os-compute describe instances
>> os-compute describe groups
>> etc...
>>
>> is far more workable than 15 separate CLI tools that do essentially
>> identical things.
>
> Yup, agree. Also keep in mind that some operations may be duplicates
> across services, just with a different context. For example,
> in a deployment where you use glance backed by swift for nova,
> os-compute describe image <id> may be the same as os-image describe
> <id> or os-object describe <id> (swift), but the os-compute is in
> the context of instances so it could have more metadata. This will
> mirror the dependency tree we see between services (especially as
> they are split out).

++

> We want to make sure there are tools so services can stand alone as
> needed (for example, os-image if you run glance standalone). Services
> that combine other services (like nova) should aggregate these into
> context-specific commands so you don't *need* to use the underlying
> service tools for most things. This allows you to control nova use
> one tool. :)

No disagreement from me.

-jay

p.s. thx for not sending me to /dev/null ;)