openstack team mailing list archive

[Caitlin Bestler <Caitlin.Bestler@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jay Pipes wrote:

> Please find the updated 2nd Draft of the proposal here:

> http://bit.ly/sA13yp

> I will close out the first draft from comments.

> Any and all feedback is most appreciated.

In the 1.0 API determining how a Storage Server would support images was very simple.
You were either a file server or a Swift server.

So for a Storage vendor, supporting the 1.0 Image API was very simple, just support Swift.

The 2.0 Image API introduces new capabilities,  but loses that straight-forward mapping to
the underlying storage.

Would it be possible to document this mapping?  It's not exactly the same thing as a user API,
but it is an external interface that ideally should have similar stability.

If no guarantees are available, just document that. "The underlying storage supporting an Image
Server must provide a POSIX file service."

But stronger statements like "each image will be represented as two Swift objects, one for the image
Itself and one for its metadata" would help vendors configure systems for OpenStack deployment.