Hi All, Few comments on the Definitions blueprint [1]:
1. I'd propose to alter the term 'Application' to either 'Application Package' or 'Package'. Application isn't very descriptive and can be confusing to some with the actual deployed instance, etc. 2. It should be possible for the package to be self-contained, in order to distribute application definitions. As such, instead of using a repo, source code might come with the package itself. Has this been considered as a blueprint: deploy code/binaries that are in a zip, rather than a repo? Maybe Artifact serves this purpose? 3. Artifact has not been called out as a top-level noun. It probably should and get a proper definition. 4. Plan is described as deployment plan, but then it's also referenced in the description of 'Build'. Plan seems to have a dual meaning, which is fine, but that should be called out explicitly. Plan is not synonymous with deployment plan, rather we have a deployment plan and a build plan. Those two together can be 'the plan'. 5. Operations. The definition states that definitions can be added to a Service too. Since the Service is provided by the platform, I assume it already comes with operations predefined. 6. Operations. A descriptor should exist that can be used for registration of the deployed assembly into a catalog. The descriptor should contain basic information about the exposed functional API and management API (e.g. Operations too). This leads to the next point: 7. Package blueprint. The Application Package might require its own blueprint to define how it's composed. I can see how the Package is used to distribute/share an application. The blueprint should define a well-known format. If the above makes sense, I can take a stab at an revised diagram. Regards, Tom Deckers. [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/solum/+spec/definitions _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
