[occi-wg] Is OCCI the HTTP of Cloud Computing?

[Edmonds, AndrewX]

The point regarding GData is one that I hinted at in the teleconf. It's a particular schema for describing the publication and syndication of content. With that (possibly simplistic view) in mind atom is not a natural fit, even though you can make it fit a model of a bunch of resources like compute, storage and network. I guess there is where the danger lies with atom, perhaps, it's quite generic and that can be very attractive, yet like the Sirens' song :-)
On further reflection, my own personal preference is with a model that is domain-specific and has as little dependencies as is possible. Something not much more simple as the one under the nouns, verbs, attribute wiki page (naturally extended with concrete types (nouns) and annotating links between entities) [1].

What is very apparent is that there are more positive calls for JSON than XML imho. Tim has provided a very useful means to choose a suitable rendering of the OCCI model and should be digested by all.

Regarding the licensing issue, if there is/were issues any of SLA at SOI contributions would be invalid as they too are released under CC-Attrib.

Regarding optional features, that makes sense. However I do see the value in offer a means to allow for extensions/plugins.

Andy

[1] http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.occi-wg/wiki/NounsVerbsAndAttributes


-----Original Message-----
From: occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Tim Bray
Sent: 06 May 2009 18:40
To: Sam Johnston
Cc: occi-wg at ogf.org
Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Is OCCI the HTTP of Cloud Computing?

On May 6, 2009, at 6:37 AM, Sam Johnston wrote:

> Au contraire, we are paying *very* close attention to the Sun Cloud
> APIs and originally wanted to draw from them heavily were it not for
> a disagreement with the OGF powers that be over Creative Commons
> licensing.

Huh?  I find this hard to understand. Could you explain?

> Sun's decision to use JSON no doubt stems from the fact that the API
> was previously consumed almost exclusively by the Q-Layer web
> interface

No.  We started with XML and decided that JSON was a superior choice.

> Oh and we are not at all wedded to OAuth - any HTTP authentication
> mechanism will do (though it may make sense for us to limit this
> somewhat for interoperability).

Actually, one of the nice things about using HTTP is that it allows
you to do like AtomPub did and say "Use whatever you want as long as
it's as strong as TLS", and let the (rich and growing) web-security
marketplace sort it out.

> So why go for angle brackets (XML) over curly braces (JSON) given
> most of the action is going on in the latter camp? In addition to
> the reasons given above, Google. That is, if we essentially rubber
> stamp GData (a well proven protocol) in the form of OCCI core

GData is all about CRUD.  The reason this cloud stuff is interesting
is that it has lots of non-CRUD stuff in it.   Maybe I'm missing
something, but the code around GData seems to live in a different
universe from the one where cloud infrastructure lives.

  -Tim
>
>
_______________________________________________
occi-wg mailing list
occi-wg at ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Ireland Limited (Branch)
Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland
Registered Number: E902934

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.