incubator-libcloud mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tomaz Muraus <to...@cloudkick.com>
Subject Re: [libcloud] libcloud storage API proposal & ideas
Date Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:52:41 GMT
I have checked out this post and specs and they look pretty "scary" (it's
~170 pages long PDF).

I mean libcloud is currently know for its simplicity, but this interface is
anything but simple.

If this standard gets any traction in the future we can support it then, but
I'm pretty sure it's out of scope for the version 0.5.0.

It adds a lot of complexity and I'm currently not aware of any major public
storage provider which supports it.

Thanks,
Tomaz

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Grig Gheorghiu <grig.gheorghiu@gmail.com>wrote:

> I just stumbled on this blog post which talks about a common for cloud
> data storage and management: CDMI. Not sure how legit this all is, but
> the guy who wrote the blog post works for NetApp.
>
>
> http://intotheinfrastructure.blogspot.com/2009/12/reference-architecture-for-cloud.html
>
> If this turns out to have industry support (and the SNIA member
> directory does have a lot of big hitters
> http://www.snia.org/member_com/member_directory/), then maybe
> libcloud's storage layer should adhere to the CDMI interface -- or at
> least provide an API for CDMI-compliant cloud storage solutions?
>
> Grig
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Sengor <sengork@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Depreciation warnings for starters, and it'd not be hard to port
> > existing code to a new libcloud version with proper upgrade
> > guidelines.
> >
> > It's probably as simple as %s/import\ libcloud/import\ libcloud.compute/
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Tomaz Muraus <tomaz@cloudkick.com>
> wrote:
> >> Yeah, trying to still keep the old imports to work and just throwing a
> >> DeprecationWarning in the next few versions sounds ok.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Paul Querna <paul@querna.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> One question not posed is the module name.
> >>>
> >>> ie, should it all be inside libcloud.storage?
> >>>
> >>> This would imply moving all our existing code to libcloud.compute,
> >>> which is kinda a pain for upgrades, but I'm kinda a fan of maybe doing
> >>> it for 0.5, but having the old imports work too for a few versions.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:30 AM, Tomaz Muraus <tomaz@cloudkick.com>
> wrote:
> >>> > Hello all,
> >>> >
> >>> > I have posted a short proposal / ideas for the object storage API on
> the
> >>> > libcloud wiki - http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/LibcloudStorageAPI
> >>> >
> >>> > Please post your feedback, opinions and ideas how to improve it.
> >>> >
> >>> > I think the next step after deciding how the API should look like (at
> >>> least
> >>> > approximately) should be
> >>> > implementing the base API and creating a reference driver and then
we
> can
> >>> > move on from there :-)
> >>> >
> >>> > - Tomaz
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > sengork
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message