Open Application Model – An open standard for defining cloud native apps(oam.dev)
oam.dev
Open Application Model – An open standard for defining cloud native apps
https://oam.dev/
46 comments
Oh the longing and despair of missing Docker Swarm...
It was missing so little...it was so well done and simple, elegant.
Docker Swarm is now the betacam of container orchestration solution.
hopefuly all these layers (kube-> custom kube -> OA*) will soon converge and fold themselves into something grandiose, efficient and simple.
How eager I am to be there :-)
Kube's main problem is that it's not quite grandiose enough, doesn't have a general encapsulation system.
So everyone which uses Helm. Which is ok, it works decently, but it's also, like, kind of a lot. The target that we've converged on is just a little too sophisticated to make shipping stuff accessible.
We need more grandiosity, in order to be adequately simple.
So everyone which uses Helm. Which is ok, it works decently, but it's also, like, kind of a lot. The target that we've converged on is just a little too sophisticated to make shipping stuff accessible.
We need more grandiosity, in order to be adequately simple.
I think that's the direction KubeVela is going
Have you tried Nomad?
Taken directly from the Nomad website[1]:
> Kubernetes and Nomad support similar core use cases for application deployment and management, but they differ in a few key ways.
> Kubernetes aims to provide all the features needed to run Docker-based applications including cluster management, scheduling, service discovery, monitoring, secrets management and more.
> Nomad only aims to focus on cluster management and scheduling and is designed with the Unix philosophy of having a small scope while composing with tools like Consul for service discovery/service mesh and Vault for secret management.
Compare Kubernetes Pods and Deployments to Nomad, and the full Kubernetes ecosystem to the full Hashicorp ecosystem please.
IMHO, Vault and Consul are very hard to operate correctly, at least as hard as a Kubernetes cluster on-premise (managed Kubernetes does not count).
[1] - https://www.nomadproject.io/docs/nomad-vs-kubernetes
> Kubernetes and Nomad support similar core use cases for application deployment and management, but they differ in a few key ways.
> Kubernetes aims to provide all the features needed to run Docker-based applications including cluster management, scheduling, service discovery, monitoring, secrets management and more.
> Nomad only aims to focus on cluster management and scheduling and is designed with the Unix philosophy of having a small scope while composing with tools like Consul for service discovery/service mesh and Vault for secret management.
Compare Kubernetes Pods and Deployments to Nomad, and the full Kubernetes ecosystem to the full Hashicorp ecosystem please.
IMHO, Vault and Consul are very hard to operate correctly, at least as hard as a Kubernetes cluster on-premise (managed Kubernetes does not count).
[1] - https://www.nomadproject.io/docs/nomad-vs-kubernetes
Swarm isn't dead, it works just fine and is being actively maintained.
Hi, OAM and KubeVela author here.
We originally created these specification and projects to facilitate delivering applications to Kubernetes without exposing all the nitty-gritty details. There's a lot to do to achieve such goal besides managing application templates, clusters, environments, cloud resources and service bindings, etc. We have seen common patterns rising up within companies of medium and large sizes. That's why we created them to provide common platform for others to build their own application platforms.
Let me know if you have any questions and I will be available here to answer them.
We originally created these specification and projects to facilitate delivering applications to Kubernetes without exposing all the nitty-gritty details. There's a lot to do to achieve such goal besides managing application templates, clusters, environments, cloud resources and service bindings, etc. We have seen common patterns rising up within companies of medium and large sizes. That's why we created them to provide common platform for others to build their own application platforms.
Let me know if you have any questions and I will be available here to answer them.
The spec doesn't appear to address the 12-factor app spec which does a similar job in a more general way.
https://github.com/oam-dev/spec/search?q=12+factor
https://12factor.net/
https://github.com/oam-dev/spec/search?q=12+factor
https://12factor.net/
Doesn't the 12-factor spec just recommend some practices about writing your app, where OAM is about the infrastructure spec?
YESSSS! That's exactly what I want to say as well :D
I wonder why do you think OAM should follow the 12-factor app spec? I personally have never heard of a spec created to address another spec.
I really like this approach for simplifying Kubernetes. A few projects similar to OAM in that it provides a higher level "Application" CRD:
https://github.com/vmware-tanzu/carvel-kapp
https://github.com/k11n/konstellation
https://github.com/kalmhq/kalm (We ended using this one, which came with a set of matching web UI)
https://github.com/vmware-tanzu/carvel-kapp
https://github.com/k11n/konstellation
https://github.com/kalmhq/kalm (We ended using this one, which came with a set of matching web UI)
Have you looked at https://www.shipa.io/
There's a K8s implementation of OAM called KubeVela (https://github.com/oam-dev/kubevela )
Don't get it. Seems like someone is trying to make Kubernetes work on Service Fabric or something.
they're trying to make any service fabric work
Not make k8s work on service fabric.
It is to provide a common platform so that the community users could build their own service fabric in an easier way.
I wonder if you can explain why does it smell like SF?
Actually it will be interesting to see k8s work on service fabric, though it seems SF itself is not interested in this (it's not even quite alive).
What is service fabric?
A google search gives me https://github.com/microsoft/service-fabric
Not sure if that's what "parent" meant.
Not sure if that's what "parent" meant.
It should be named Open Kubernetes Application Model. If I'm understanding correctly, it should be "portable" to other orchestrators or even bare metal. However, it seems to be quite leaky of the underlying Kubernetes stuff.
Reusing Kubernetes Resource Model to build app-centric platform have many benefits:
1. Work seamlessly with any CI CD solutions which work with Kubernetes.
2. Clarity in api versions in the spec entity.
3. Adopt widely used best practices such as metadata, spec & status.
Overall, we should be aware that the complexity of Kubernetes does NOT lie in its api model (Group, Version, Kind etc). Also, an abstraction adopts this model does not leak anything in underlying Kubernetes runtime.
Overall, we should be aware that the complexity of Kubernetes does NOT lie in its api model (Group, Version, Kind etc). Also, an abstraction adopts this model does not leak anything in underlying Kubernetes runtime.
Yeah, well, survival instinct. They could never compete in a void. They need to borrow/interop with what everyone already enjoys.
An abstraction (OAM)
On the top of an abstraction (K8s Custom Object specification)
On the top of an abstraction (Kubernetes, et.al.)
On top of another abstraction (Containers)
On top of another abstraction (VMs)
I wonder if the Dyke-sealing-boy is available for the inevitable leaks?
On a slightly more serious note, even though I participated in OAM early in the process, I've never really seen the value in the abstraction it provides, especially since it's using the Kubernetes Custom Object Model to run on Kubernetes (first, not only, I know).
On the top of an abstraction (K8s Custom Object specification)
On the top of an abstraction (Kubernetes, et.al.)
On top of another abstraction (Containers)
On top of another abstraction (VMs)
I wonder if the Dyke-sealing-boy is available for the inevitable leaks?
On a slightly more serious note, even though I participated in OAM early in the process, I've never really seen the value in the abstraction it provides, especially since it's using the Kubernetes Custom Object Model to run on Kubernetes (first, not only, I know).
Abstraction is what powers IT, what allows it to scale as immensely as it did. It hides the irrelevant details, handles it for you.
Abstraction is not always expensive, except at wrapping your head around it. (Though in the case of Kubernetes, the runtime and operations cost may be noticeable.)
Abstraction is not always expensive, except at wrapping your head around it. (Though in the case of Kubernetes, the runtime and operations cost may be noticeable.)
Imagine a developer:
> On top of another abstraction (VMs)
Who does not need to badly handle infrastructure
> On top of another abstraction (Containers)
Who does not need to badly handle isolation
> On the top of an abstraction (Kubernetes, et.al.)
Who does not need to badly handle scalability
> On the top of an abstraction (K8s Custom Object specification)
Who does not need to badly handle deployment
> An abstraction (OAM)
Who just wants to ship their code
> On top of another abstraction (VMs)
Who does not need to badly handle infrastructure
> On top of another abstraction (Containers)
Who does not need to badly handle isolation
> On the top of an abstraction (Kubernetes, et.al.)
Who does not need to badly handle scalability
> On the top of an abstraction (K8s Custom Object specification)
Who does not need to badly handle deployment
> An abstraction (OAM)
Who just wants to ship their code
> Who just wants to ship their code
That exists, its called a PaaS. Kubernetes was not meant to be a PaaS.
I'm starting to think people create these orgs to forward their own career, products, or companies.
That exists, its called a PaaS. Kubernetes was not meant to be a PaaS.
I'm starting to think people create these orgs to forward their own career, products, or companies.
> its called a PaaS
You mean like Heroku?
Kubernetes allows your ops and developers to collaborate and scale and avoid vendor lock-in.
How does a PaaS (like Heroku?) allows that?
You mean like Heroku?
Kubernetes allows your ops and developers to collaborate and scale and avoid vendor lock-in.
How does a PaaS (like Heroku?) allows that?
K8s is one of many options to collaborate and scale applications and for many organizations it is not the best option. It also comes with lots of vendor lock-in if you're using a service like GKE, EKS, or AKE, or integrate with any of their loadbalancer or storage solutions!
Oracle and Alibaba building a large abstraction on top of kubernetes, to do something kubernetes was not designed to do (though capable of doing), is not the direction I personally believe distributed systems development should standardize around.
There are tons of self-hosted PaaS options that are not built on top of massive abstractions and provide better functionality to their users. Since you mentioned Heroku i'll mention https://github.com/dokku/dokku.
Oracle and Alibaba building a large abstraction on top of kubernetes, to do something kubernetes was not designed to do (though capable of doing), is not the direction I personally believe distributed systems development should standardize around.
There are tons of self-hosted PaaS options that are not built on top of massive abstractions and provide better functionality to their users. Since you mentioned Heroku i'll mention https://github.com/dokku/dokku.
Yes K8s is one of many options, but one that can translate to many situations. I'd still choose it over anything else when I need more than a `docker run` on a server.
Thanks for the link btw.
Thanks for the link btw.
No worries and maybe I am being harsh here but this whole thing seems like a couple big providers trying to push their own idioms on the DevOps industry, an industry which is already saturated on dishonest marketing kool-aid.
"Our solution is way better then all those pre-existing solutions!".
No. No it isn't. Stop acting like you're helping me when you're really selling me something.
"Our solution is way better then all those pre-existing solutions!".
No. No it isn't. Stop acting like you're helping me when you're really selling me something.
Hi there. I think every open source project is trying to push "their own idioms" to the community. But good open source projects provide good technology directions and generic abstractions to reuse, not dishonest marketing. I suspect that marketing would not work if the project is not good -- people are really smart when choosing projects.
There's no such industry named "build app-centric platforms".
The shoveling of "Cloud Native" is in part a bid to sell cloud services at AWS, Azure, GCP, Oracle, Alibaba, etc. Just because the engineers on the ground doing the work conveniently ignore this point doesn't mean that the executives who ultimately green light and fund these projects aren't considering it the #1 priority.
More and more applications will be built on cloud with or without "cloud-native", we can't stop this trend or arguing technologies that intend to make this process smoother/easier.
And yes I agree those cloud providers will make more money with this trend.
And yes I agree those cloud providers will make more money with this trend.
Actually, almost every big company built massive abstractions on top of Kubernetes and it is what Kubernetes is designed to do (and good at).
That's why if you had a chance to look at Dokku and any other "better" self-hosted PaaS offerings, they are dead. Ppl today choose to use Kubernetes to build abstractions atop and OAM is a battle tested option to achieve this with better clarity and interpretability. Many companies are shifting away from Cloud Foundry and OpenShift to this approach.
That's why if you had a chance to look at Dokku and any other "better" self-hosted PaaS offerings, they are dead. Ppl today choose to use Kubernetes to build abstractions atop and OAM is a battle tested option to achieve this with better clarity and interpretability. Many companies are shifting away from Cloud Foundry and OpenShift to this approach.
Kubernetes + OAM = PaaS the better way
Reminds me of SICP.
If we all use LISP the whole tech stack would be much simpler :)
Agree. I must thank OSI layers model, so I don't need to program against TCP packets ...
Computer science is all about abstractions. You can keep on going down with your examples: VMs are an abstraction on top of an operating system, which is an abstraction on top of virtual memory, on top of a physical machine...
Just like Python is an abstraction on top of C, which is an abstraction on top of assembly language, which is an abstraction of a CPU and memory, etc.
There’s reasons for all of the abstractions.
Just like Python is an abstraction on top of C, which is an abstraction on top of assembly language, which is an abstraction of a CPU and memory, etc.
There’s reasons for all of the abstractions.
Complaining OAM should not be implemented on K8s doesn't make sense to me.
Kubernetes is NOT a PaaS, it's by design for you to create abstractions atop and serve your own purposes. And OAM is a great option if you want to build things like app PaaS or app delivery systems with k8s.
It seems you either have mis-understanding on OAM or Kubernetes, based on you are involved in OAM, it's likely the later case.
Kubernetes is NOT a PaaS, it's by design for you to create abstractions atop and serve your own purposes. And OAM is a great option if you want to build things like app PaaS or app delivery systems with k8s.
It seems you either have mis-understanding on OAM or Kubernetes, based on you are involved in OAM, it's likely the later case.