On 20/06/13 21:34, Joshua Harlow 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.
Sorry for missing that meeting, I left the house right after sending
that email. Unfortunately (for you ;) I won't be around for the next
couple of weeks, but let's definitely sync when I get back.
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.
+1
I wanted to wait until I had tested it with some more complicated use
cases before trying to push it outside of Heat. Now that that is done
and I have a reasonable level of confidence in it, it would be good to
explore which parts can be rolled into TaskFlow and which can be
replaced by existing stuff in TaskFlow. Documenting the requirements
that it is currently satisfying in Heat was the first step in that process.
cheers,
Zane.
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
