Shall we introduce tags into cartridges. This may useful in versioning as well.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Martin Eppel (meppel) <[email protected]> wrote: > I think this might not cover the use cases and we still need to support > dependencies of same type cartridges in service groups. I wonder if we can > extend the dependency description model and add an extra parameter which > allows us to refer to instance of same type cartridges: > > > > > > { > > "name": "group5", > > "subGroups": [ > > ], > > "cartridges": [ > > "c1.1", "c1.2", "c3", “c4” > > ], > > "dependencies": { > > "startupOrders": [ > > "cartridge.c3,cartridge.c1.1”, > > "cartridge.c4,cartridge.c1.2”, > > ], > > "terminationBehaviour": "terminate-dependents" > > } > > } > > > > > > with cartridge cartridge.c1.1 and cartridge.c1.2 using different > subscription parameters (like deployment policy, etc ). > > > > In this configuration, c3 and c4 will start up in parallel and an instance > of c1 cartridge will start up once c3 is active and respectively when c4 > becomes active. > > > > WDYT ? > > > > Thanks > > > > Martin > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Isuru > Haththotuwa > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:15 PM > > *To:* dev > *Subject:* Re: [grouping][question] cartrdige type in dependency > definition > > > > Hi Martin, > > In a Service Group, we do not have runtime data, as aliases and other > relevant subscription data are provided in the application deployment. > > If you need to start two instances of the same cartridge type, what you > can do is to put them in the application itself without using a group, and > then specify the startup order using cartridge aliases: > > "startupOrders": [ > > "cartridge.*<alias1>*, cartridge.*<alias2>*, cartridge. > *<alias3>*" > > ], > > all the aliases refer to the same cartridge type. > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Martin Eppel (meppel) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Udara, > > > > Yes, I confirmed, there are real use cases where we have dependencies on > the same cartridge type but different subscriptions, one is an example of > active / standby scenario another one a scenario to patch / upgrade the > system. > > > > Quoting the response below: > > > > > > ns-01 and ns-02 are instances of a network server cluster. Strictly > speaking they belong to the same cluster so having both be the same > cartridge type makes sense. Making them different cartridge types seems > wrong. We really only need either ns-01 or ns-02 to be up in order to > declare the cluster as available and I can't see how we do that if we use > different cartridge types. > > One of the original use cases was to use grouping to represent a cluster. > One use cases might involve have multiple subscriptions representing > collectively a cluster, so each having the same cartridge type would be > useful. Each subscription in this case would have one or more instances. > For example, if we want to represent a cluster with a subscription a. At > some point later, we might want to add a subscription b to the group which > point to a different version of code (likely a patched version) and remove > subscription a after we've deploy and verified subscription b. I imagine > doing this by revising a group with additional subscriptions with the same > cartridge type. > > I believe Matt has a similar requirement where one VM is in active state > and the other is in standby. > > > > > > > > *From:* Martin Eppel (meppel) > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:21 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [grouping][question] cartrdige type in dependency > definition > > > > Hi Udara, > > > > No problem, I was just wondering if it is supported or not. > > > > On the other hand we might have a real use case, let me follow up on this > > > > Thanks > > > > Martin > > > > *From:* Udara Liyanage [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:16 PM > *To:* dev > *Subject:* Re: [grouping][question] cartrdige type in dependency > definition > > > > Hi Martin, > > Creating another cartridge type is just changing the type parameter of the > existing cartridge json if you are using the base image approach and > deploying the new json. > > If the requirement is only the easiness in testing, I don't think > implementing this feasibility is necessary given that we are in a tight > schedule. However if there is a real world use case I am OK. > > Touched, not typed. Erroneous words are a feature, not a typo. > > -- > > Thanks and Regards, > > Isuru H. > > +94 716 358 048 > > > > -- Lakmal Warusawithana Vice President, Apache Stratos Director - Cloud Architecture; WSO2 Inc. Mobile : +94714289692 Blog : http://lakmalsview.blogspot.com/
