Zane Bitter zbit...@redhat.com wrote on 30.10.2013 22:33:31:
From: Zane Bitter zbit...@redhat.com
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org,
Date: 30.10.2013 22:36
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Comments on Steve Baker's
Proposal on HOT Software Config
On 30/10/13 20:35, Lakshminaraya
-Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUS wrote: -To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List \(not for usage questions\)"openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgFrom: Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUSDate: 10/30/2013 03:56PMSubject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Comments on Steve Baker'sProposal on HOT Software
Zane, thanks very much for the detailed feedback. I have added my comments
inline.
Zane Bitter zbit...@redhat.com wrote on 10/29/2013 08:46:21 AM:
...
As brief feedback on these suggestions:
E1: Probably +1 for inputs, but tentative -1 for attributes. I'm not
sure we can check anything useful
Lakshminaraya Renganarayana/Watson/IBM@IBMUS wrote on 10/30/2013 03:35:32
PM:
Zane Bitter zbit...@redhat.com wrote on 10/29/2013 08:46:21 AM:
...
In this method
(i.e. option (2) above) shouldn't we be building the dependency graph
in
Heat rather than running through them sequentially
On 30/10/13 20:35, Lakshminaraya Renganarayana wrote:
I'd like to see some more detail about how
inputs/outputs would be exposed in the configuration management systems
- or, more specifically, how the user can extend this to arbitrary
configuration management systems.
The way
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 04:48:45PM -0400, Mike Spreitzer wrote:
Steve Baker sba...@redhat.com wrote on 10/28/2013 04:24:30 PM:
On 10/29/2013 02:53 AM, Steven Hardy wrote:
...
Can anyone provide me with a clear argument for what the fundamental
differences actually are?
...
Since
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 02:34:44PM -0700, Georgy Okrokvertskhov wrote:
I believe we had a discussion about difference between declarative approach
and workflows. A component approach is consistent with declarative format
as all actions\operations are hidden inside the service. If you want to
On 28/10/13 04:23, Lakshminaraya Renganarayana wrote:
Sorry, Re-posting this with [Heat] in the subject line, because many of
us have filters based on [Heat] in the subject line.
Hello,
A few us at IBM studied Steve Baker's proposal on HOT Software
Configuration. Overall the proposed
On 28/10/13 14:53, Steven Hardy wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:23:20PM -0400, Lakshminaraya Renganarayana wrote:
A few us at IBM studied Steve Baker's proposal on HOT Software
Configuration. Overall the proposed constructs and syntax are great -- we
really like the clean syntax and concise
Hi Steve,
I am sorry for my confusing message.
Just for clarification, I am against adding new abstracts to the HOT
template. I just wanted to highlight that in Lakshminarayana proposal there
are multiple steps which represent the same component in different stages.
This might be confusing,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 01:50:59PM +0100, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 28/10/13 14:53, Steven Hardy wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:23:20PM -0400, Lakshminaraya Renganarayana wrote:
A few us at IBM studied Steve Baker's proposal on HOT Software
Configuration. Overall the proposed constructs and
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:23:20PM -0400, Lakshminaraya Renganarayana wrote:
A few us at IBM studied Steve Baker's proposal on HOT Software
Configuration. Overall the proposed constructs and syntax are great -- we
really like the clean syntax and concise specification of components. We
would
On Oct 28, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Steven Hardy sha...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:23:20PM -0400, Lakshminaraya Renganarayana wrote:
A few us at IBM studied Steve Baker's proposal on HOT Software
Configuration. Overall the proposed constructs and syntax are great -- we
really
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 02:33:40PM +, Randall Burt wrote:
On Oct 28, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Steven Hardy sha...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:23:20PM -0400, Lakshminaraya Renganarayana wrote:
A few us at IBM studied Steve Baker's proposal on HOT Software
Configuration.
On Oct 28, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Steven Hardy sha...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 02:33:40PM +, Randall Burt wrote:
On Oct 28, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Steven Hardy sha...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:23:20PM -0400, Lakshminaraya Renganarayana wrote:
A few us at
Hi Lakshminarayanan,
I believe the extensions you proposed will extend HOT software components
usability. In general I have only one concern related to components naming.
In your examples you have software components like install_mysql (you got
it from Steve's example) and configure_app.
I would
Steve Baker sba...@redhat.com wrote on 10/28/2013 04:24:30 PM:
On 10/29/2013 02:53 AM, Steven Hardy wrote:
...
Can anyone provide me with a clear argument for what the fundamental
differences actually are?
...
Since writing those proposals my thinking has evolved too. I'm currently
A component is implemented by a bit of user code (and/or other sorts of
instructions) embedded in or referenced by a template, with no fixed API
and not invoked with Keystone credentials. We desire the heat engine to
invoke operations on resources; we do not desire the heat engine to invoke
Sorry, Re-posting this with [Heat] in the subject line, because many of us
have filters based on [Heat] in the subject line.
Hello,
A few us at IBM studied Steve Baker's proposal on HOT Software
Configuration. Overall the proposed constructs and syntax are great -- we
really like the clean
19 matches
Mail list logo
