Andrei, My involvement would be more from interest. My current day job doen't involve use of any of these tools :(
So, it would be mostly the weekend hacking, blogging and probably using/testing stuff and play around with it. As of now I doubt I will be able to be the core dev for this. Contributor or not, I shall anyways do it :) HTH! ashish On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Andrei Savu <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Ashish! > > How would you use or extend Provisionr? > > -- Andrei Savu > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Ashish <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Andrei, > > > > Can you add me as contributor, if it works for you :) > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Andrei Savu <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi guys - > > > > > > I have submitted a proposal to bring Axemblr Provisionr to the Apache > > > Incubator (see [email protected]): > > > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ProvisionrProposal > > > > > > And this is a slide deck that explains medium term plans & challenges: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.slideshare.net/savu.andrei/creating-pools-of-virtual-machines-apachecon-na-2013 > > > > > > If you want to join as a mentor / initial contributor you are welcome! > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -- Andrei Savu > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Paul Baclace <[email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > On 20130209 4:37 , Andrei Savu wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Paul Baclace < > [email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Do you have any rough idea of state transition latency and > throughput > > > you > > > >>> get when using Activiti and how this compares to using > Whirr/jclouds > > > in a > > > >>> single process? > > > >>> > > > >>> Is this important? During pool creation most of the time is spent > in > > > >> loops > > > >> waiting for external services. We try to keep each activity as short > > as > > > >> possible to avoid long running transactions. > > > >> > > > >> The reason I ask is that although Activiti has good support for > > > designing > > > >>> processes and programmatic control of the engine, it is necessarily > > DB > > > >>> transaction limited. An obvious alternative design is to use > > something > > > >>> that > > > >>> is actor based which can run entirely in RAM. I admit that an actor > > > >>> control > > > >>> system would make it harder to trace what happened, compared to > > > business > > > >>> process control which is very much oriented toward > human-in-the-loop. > > > >>> > > > >>> I think it's going to take while for us to hit that limitation. I > > see > > > >> good > > > >> performance even if we are using an embedded H2 database - it should > > > work > > > >> a > > > >> lot better with a PostgresSQL server. It's true that Activiti is > > > oriented > > > >> towards human-in-the-loop processes but it works well also for > > > >> unsupervised > > > >> ones. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> As long as the orchestration is at the appropriate granularity (not > > > > micro-managing), then using Activiti should be fine. Another thing it > > can > > > > do that is more challenging for a single machine actor system is > > preserve > > > > state across controller restarts. > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > thanks > > ashish > > > > Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog > > My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal > > > -- thanks ashish Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
