Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:10:34AM +0100, Ivan Necas wrote: >> Ohad Levy <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Lukas Zapletal <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Why we haven't considered ActiveJob API in the first place? This looks >> >> like ideal solution, easy development and documented API. >> >> >> >> Can't ActiveJob help us with memory issues we have with external task >> >> executor in Katello? I mean what if we run background tasks inside >> >> passenger process by default for easier deployment and maintenance. Of >> >> course, restart would mean lost queue. >> >> >> > >> > I don't know if that's what you had in mind or not, but if it end up being >> > blocking the request, its not useful at all, as that would lead to more >> > confusion, and a developer will need to care for more usage cases (is it >> > blocking now, is it running async) and especially when there is a need for >> > ui, imho it just makes it harder. >> > >> > if we do move to active job api in core(+1), I could see us starting >> > without tasks first for pure async operations, over time converting dynflow >> > to be orchestration engine vs async and orchestration. >> > Futher, I would challenge a bit the orchestration implementation in Katello >> > (not in a negative way) but if a task fails due to unavailability of one of >> > the backends, the application should know how to deal with it (micro >> > service / soa) rather then fail / lock the task for the future, I would ask >> > if this is the correct long term approach for complex operations. >> >> While I like challenging the things, let's not make this thread to >> broad. >> >> I've made quite a progress with ActiveJob, and while it's not perfect, >> for basic introduction of async operations it should work well enough. >> >> However, I'm still few days from having it ready, and I want keep the >> promise to propose the solution to falling nightlies by Monday evening. >> Therefore, I've opened a PR for reverting the original change >> >> https://github.com/theforeman/foreman/pull/4217 >> >> This is not a resignation of trying to get the tasks functionality into >> core, but rather lowering a pressure a bit so that we can focus on the >> right things to do. I hope the PR adding the functionality back, using >> the approach we talked about, will come sooner rather than later, followed >> by adding the tasking plumbing into core, to support async operations, >> as well as dynflow orchestration and current host orchestration. > > I greatly appreciate your effort to fix the situation. > > Given nightly has already been broken for a bit, I'd find it acceptable > if we pushed the reversal to next week. That should give you a little > bit extra time to work on ActiveJob which is most likely where we want > to end up anyway. > > My biggest question is: in a few days (I'm guessing that's 3 or 4), will > it be in mergeable shape? Would that mean we can expect it to be merged > on Monday? With FOSDEM and cfgmgtcamp coming up I'd like to have nightly > back into shape before it.
I think it's realistic. If it's acceptable for people to wait for few days, I'm ok with the updated plan. -- Ivan > > I'd propose to aim for working nightlies built on Wednesday 1 February. > We most likely want a day to fix any regressions that might have slipped > in so we need to merge something to Foreman develop on Monday 30 > January. Since reviewers need time to review that means the ActiveJob PR > needs to be there some time in advance. I can't speak for the reviewers, > but I'm guessing before Monday morning would be nice. > > If no consensus on the ActiveJob PR can be reached by Monday evening, > then the reversal is merged instead. This still allows to verify/fix > other regressions on Tuesday and have working nightlies on Wednesday. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
