[occi-wg] thought on interoperability vs integration

[Randy Bias]

On 5/11/09 12:37 AM, "Alexis Richardson" <alexis.richardson at 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 at gogrid.com, (415) 939-8507 [mobile]
BLOG: http://neotactics.com/blog, TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias