[occi-wg] moving forward

[Alexis Richardson]

Sam,

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote
>
> I guess I missed the memo where running into the usual contention over
> programmers' preferred formats means we've failed and need to start from
> scratch.

My proposal is not that we start from scratch, it is that we are
missing a chunk of definitions for how to interact with the cloud.
Taking the Sun/GG API and, as you put it, picking their eyes out
(eek!) is a good way to fill that gap.

As I say, I am looking for GROUP feedback here please.


> I also missed the part where adopting one vendor's WiP API over any
> other is somehow fair to other vendors,

The word "adopting" does not mean the same as "taking as a starting
point" which is what was used.  It is precisely BECAUSE it is WiP that
it is useful for our purposes which include "taking what has been done
and making it better and common".

I would like to hear what the other vendors think *from them*.




> That said, we're working on problems with subtle but important differences -
> Tim needed to expose the specific functionality of Sun's technology while we
> need to be more generic, flexible and extensible. We'll pick the eyes out
> (e.g. take the best parts) of Sun's and GoGrid's and ElasticHosts' and
> whatever other applicable APIs we can find but if the perfect API existed
> already none of us would be here.

Please DO just that.  Make those APIs better.  Tell us what needs to
be done to them to make them better.  Explain the subtle but important
differences with reference to the work on the wiki to illustrate
specific requirements.

alexis







>
> Sam
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>