2014-07-25 18:53:06 +02:00
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
layout: "intro"
|
|
|
|
page_title: "Terraform vs. Boto, Fog, etc."
|
|
|
|
sidebar_current: "vs-other-boto"
|
2014-10-22 05:21:56 +02:00
|
|
|
description: |-
|
2021-06-28 23:10:11 +02:00
|
|
|
How Terraform compares to cloud provider client libraries.
|
2014-07-25 18:53:06 +02:00
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Terraform vs. Boto, Fog, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Libraries like Boto, Fog, etc. are used to provide native access
|
2014-09-02 20:29:22 +02:00
|
|
|
to cloud providers and services by using their APIs. Some
|
2014-07-25 18:53:06 +02:00
|
|
|
libraries are focused on specific clouds, while others attempt
|
|
|
|
to bridge them all and mask the semantic differences. Using a client
|
|
|
|
library only provides low-level access to APIs, requiring application
|
2014-09-02 20:29:22 +02:00
|
|
|
developers to create their own tooling to build and manage their infrastructure.
|
2014-07-25 18:53:06 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terraform is not intended to give low-level programmatic access to
|
|
|
|
providers, but instead provides a high level syntax for describing
|
|
|
|
how cloud resources and services should be created, provisioned, and
|
2014-07-29 17:31:28 +02:00
|
|
|
combined. Terraform is very flexible, using a plugin-based model to
|
2014-07-27 21:30:25 +02:00
|
|
|
support providers and provisioners, giving it the ability to support
|
|
|
|
almost any service that exposes APIs.
|