On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Clint Byrum <[email protected]> wrote:
> Excerpts from Thomas Spatzier's message of 2013-11-11 08:57:58 -0800: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I have just posted the following wiki page to reflect a refined proposal > > for HOT software configuration based on discussions at the design summit > > last week. Angus also put a sample up in an etherpad last week, but we > did > > not have enough time to go thru it in the design session. My write-up is > > based on Angus' sample, actually a refinement, and on discussions we had > in > > breaks, plus it is trying to reflect all the good input from ML > discussions > > and Steve Baker's initial proposal. > > > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Heat/Blueprints/hot-software-config-WIP > > > > Please review and provide feedback. > > Hi Thomas, thanks for spelling this out clearly. > > I am still -1 on anything that specifies the place a configuration is > hosted inside the configuration definition itself. Because configurations > are encapsulated by servers, it makes more sense to me that the servers > (or server groups) would specify their configurations. If changing to a > more logical model is just too hard for TOSCA to adapt to, then I suggest > this be an area that TOSCA differs from Heat. We don't need two models > for communicating configurations to servers, and I'd prefer Heat stay > focused on making HOT template authors' and users' lives better. > > I agree that the specification of which configs go on which servers should be separated from both. This is how the good configuration tools like puppet work anyway: you specify your servers, you specify ways to configure them, and you specify which servers get which configs, all in potentially separate places for maximum flexibility. -- IRC: radix Christopher Armstrong Rackspace
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
