On 26/01/17 23:39, Andrew Wilkins wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:16 PM Mark Shuttleworth <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
> Why do we have bootstrap-constraints as a weird and different
> constraint, when we are intending to represent the controller
> services as apps with endpoints in the controller model anyway?
> Surely these are normal constraints on those apps?
>
>
> bootstrap-constraints would apply to the controller only, within the
> controller model. When we do represent the controller as an app, it
> would make sense to store the constraints on that app.
>
> It's separate from --constraints because --constraints affects the
> default model's constraints. If you just want bigger controller
> instances without affecting anything else, that's when you pass
> --bootstrap-constraints.
Right, we're using the same term ("--constraints") to describe both the
default machine constraint (I think for all models unless otherwise
specified?) and the app-specific constraint on a particular service.
That's not very easily understandable. We should have a nice way to talk
about defaults, and use that for default machines too, not use a --foo
which is commonly used for something totally different.
To me, the bootstrap command is all about deploying the controller. It's
effectively juju deploy controller --constraints. I would expect the
bootstrap constraints to affect the controller machines only. And I
would expect some sort of model-defaults schema to talk about other
default behaviors.
Mark
--
Juju-dev mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
