As long as there is the option (and good install and config info) for a locally installed service, I think it's okay to have a hosted service as a default.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:59:04AM -0500, Suresh Marru wrote: > Hi All, > > As we get ready for the 0.14 release, one thing which always comes up is the > installation of RabbitMQ. We addressed this for Zookeper by using embedded > server. But thats not a good approach for RabbitMQ server since its in Erlang > (and not in Java, unlike rest of Airavata) and forking of an external process > on different operating systems will lead to unpredictable errors. > > How about we mitigate this pointing the release build to a hosted service? > Here are some pros and cons: > > * This will alleviate the installation requirements and will go back to one > click installation. > * Users will not have to worry about downloading and starting up RabbitMQ > server. But can change it to local or other installations in properties file. > * If a user is trying to use Airavata without having the need for internet > connectivity, then they have to have a local installation. > * There is a risk of the service being down and the release being pointed to > a stale service. This can be mitigated by a persistent CName alias which > points to a hosted server. > * There are popular rabbitmq hosted services [1], [2], [3] but are often > expensive [4] for a community project. > * Few of Airavata active developers (along with me) are part of a download > airavata project which runs airavata as a service. Within SciGaP project [1] > we could run a persistent service like rabbitmq-service.scigap.org atleast > for near future. > > Given these tradeoff’s and options, any opinions? > > Cheers, > Suresh > > [1] - https://cloud.google.com/solutions/rabbitmq/ > [2] - http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/services/service-bus/ > (which claims to interoperate with rabbitmq) > [3] - https://www.cloudamqp.com/ > [4] - https://www.cloudamqp.com/plans.html > [5] - http://scigap.org/
