Joshua, On Jun 20, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Joshua Harlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Adrian for adding that, > > Zane, it would be great if you could show up. I have a few questions about > said heat requirements, especially about how the current mechanism > accomplishes those requirements. > > IMHO I'd rather not have 2 workflow libraries (aka your scheduler.py) and > taskflow. It would be advantageous I think to focus on one way if we can. > This would be beneficial to all and if we can merge those ideas into > taskflow I'm all for it personally. Since one of the possible > ending-points for taskflow is in oslo, that would seem like a useful merge > of ideas and code instead of a divergent approach. To be clear, Zane did not intentionally diverge. His scheduler.py code pre-dates taskflow. It would be great if we could collaborate and converge though. Thanks, Adrian > > -Josh > > On 6/20/13 9:20 AM, "Adrian Otto" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Zane, >> >> Thanks for putting the requirements list together. That's very helpful. >> There is a task-flow meeting today where we can discuss this. I added it >> to the agenda. Please attend if possible: >> >> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/StateManagement >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adrian >> >> On Jun 20, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Zane Bitter <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> After the Heat meeting yesterday I had a discussion with Keith Bray and >>> Jessica Lucci about what sort of features Heat needs from TaskFlow in >>> order to be able to adopt it as a workflow system. In the course of that >>> discussion I volunteered to put together a list of requirements, and >>> here is my first cut at that: >>> >>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Heat/TaskSystemRequirements >>> >>> The key point for me is that workflow is core to what an orchestration >>> system does, and therefore it is essential that we can continue to test >>> integration with it *directly*. >>> >>> That (combined with a reluctance to take on big external dependencies) >>> makes me sceptical of Celery or similar solutions, but hopefully this >>> information should be a good starting point for Celery experts like >>> Jessica to figure out why I'm wrong ;) >>> >>> >>> Incidentally, the coroutine-based task library that we're currently >>> using in Heat is becoming a bit more mature - I've been using it to >>> orchestrate stack updates, which is the most complicated workflow we >>> have. The major remaining pain point is missing the rollback features >>> mentioned on the wiki page. If this proves to be something that is >>> useful across projects, I would be happy to contribute it to Oslo. If >>> anybody is interested in checking it out, the code is here: >>> >>> https://github.com/openstack/heat/blob/master/heat/engine/scheduler.py >>> >>> cheers, >>> Zane. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
