On 03/10/2016 01:09 PM, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote: > On 03/10/2016 11:29 PM, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote: >> On 03/10/2016 08:15 PM, Aaron Weitekamp wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Ratnadeep Debnath >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Till now, Nulecule's focus has been to be a spec to package and ship >>> nested, composable multi container applications. Well, it helps >>> us to >>> focus on a smaller problem and solve it well. This also keeps >>> implementation of Nulecule, e.g., atomicapp, lean and simple. >>> >>> However, is it enough? >>> >>> >>> I will try to highlight a few shortcomings of the current >>> Nulecule spec: >>> >>> - the spec file does not fully describe the architecture of the >>> applications >>> - it's difficult to get started with Nulecule as it requires >>> knowledge >>> of underlying providers >>> - it's not possible to use the same Nulecule spec to deploy a >>> Nulecule >>> application across providers without writing artifacts for each >>> provider >>> >>> >>> So, we are thinking in the lines of extending Nulecule SPEC to >>> describe a multi container application completely in the SPEC file, >>> similar to Docker compose file. This will enable us to: >>> >>> - to automatically generate artifact files for underlying providers >>> from the SPEC file >>> - to override the generated artifact files, if needed >>> >>> >>> The advantages of such a change would be: >>> >>> - zero barrier entry for developers >>> - package once, in one language, and deploy anywhere >>> >>> >>> This move will be beneficial to: >>> >>> - developers, with little knowledge about openshift, k8s, >>> marathon, etc. >>> >>> >>> I disagree that we can shoulder the burden of making openshift or >>> kubernetes or anything else easier to use. We haven't been >>> successful making our own tooling easy to use and adopt. The >>> platform has to do this work. >> >> I think we all agree that Nulecule is a great idea. But to make it >> successful with respect to community we need to make writing of >> Nulecule spec relatively easier than writing Kubernetes configuration >> files. >> >> Either we take this task along with Nulecule/Atomic App or work with >> Kubernetes project to do it. We can work with Kubernetes project for >> this, but what should we do with other providers e.g. Mesos. >> >> I am taking Kubernetes example because if we fix it it will be >> applicable to OpenShift too. Point to note that writing Docker >> compose files is already easy as compared to Kubernetes >> configuration files. >> >> So the experience should be better then writing Kubernetes files and >> better or equal to writing Docker compose files. >> > > One of the advantage of Nulecule/Atomic App is we don't have to move a > tar ball with all the artifacts with custom scripts and instructions > to deploy the application in different environments e.g. test, > production etc. However with containers automated pipeline which > would move the application from test to production makes more sense > and it kind of dilutes the advantage. >
I saw Pradeepto's write-up on Helm/DM, using Nulecule for the 'bundle' format with AtomicApp with Helm/DM - does that not mostly complete the picture? Carl.
_______________________________________________ Container-tools mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/container-tools
