Time to resurrect this thread.

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:14 PM James Slagle <james.sla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Dan Prince <dpri...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Last week I was tinkering with my docker configuration a bit and was a
> > bit surprised that puppet/services/docker.yaml no longer used puppet to
> > configure the docker daemon. It now uses Ansible [1] which is very cool
> > but brings up the question of how should we clearly indicate to
> > developers and users that we are using Ansible vs Puppet for
> > configuration?
> >
> > TripleO has been around for a while now, has supported multiple
> > configuration ans service types over the years: os-apply-config,
> > puppet, containers, and now Ansible. In the past we've used rigid
> > directory structures to identify which "service type" was used. More
> > recently we mixed things up a bit more even by extending one service
> > type from another ("docker" services all initially extended the
> > "puppet" services to generate config files and provide an easy upgrade
> > path).
> >
> > Similarly we now use Ansible all over the place for other things in
> > many of or docker and puppet services for things like upgrades. That is
> > all good too. I guess the thing I'm getting at here is just a way to
> > cleanly identify which services are configured via Puppet vs. Ansible.
> > And how can we do that in the least destructive way possible so as not
> > to confuse ourselves and our users in the process.
> >
> > Also, I think its work keeping in mind that TripleO was once a multi-
> > vendor project with vendors that had different preferences on service
> > configuration. Also having the ability to support multiple
> > configuration mechanisms in the future could once again present itself
> > (thinking of Kubernetes as an example). Keeping in mind there may be a
> > conversion period that could well last more than a release or two.
> >
> > I suggested a 'services/ansible' directory with mixed responces in our
> > #tripleo meeting this week. Any other thoughts on the matter?
> I would almost rather see us organize the directories by service
> name/project instead of implementation.
> Instead of:
> puppet/services/nova-api.yaml
> puppet/services/nova-conductor.yaml
> docker/services/nova-api.yaml
> docker/services/nova-conductor.yaml
> We'd have:
> services/nova/nova-api-puppet.yaml
> services/nova/nova-conductor-puppet.yaml
> services/nova/nova-api-docker.yaml
> services/nova/nova-conductor-docker.yaml
> (or perhaps even another level of directories to indicate
> puppet/docker/ansible?)
> Personally, such an organization is something I'm more used to. It
> feels more similar to how most would expect a puppet module or ansible
> role to be organized, where you have the abstraction (service
> configuration) at a higher directory level than specific
> implementations.
> It would also lend itself more easily to adding implementations only
> for specific services, and address the question of if a new top level
> implementation directory needs to be created. For example, adding a
> services/nova/nova-api-chef.yaml seems a lot less contentious than
> adding a top level chef/services/nova-api.yaml.
> It'd also be nice if we had a way to mark the default within a given
> service's directory. Perhaps services/nova/nova-api-default.yaml,
> which would be a new template that just consumes the default? Or
> perhaps a symlink, although it was pointed out symlinks don't work in
> swift containers. Still, that could possibly be addressed in our plan
> upload workflows. Then the resource-registry would point at
> nova-api-default.yaml. One could easily tell which is the default
> without having to cross reference with the resource-registry.

So since I'm adding a new ansible service, I thought I'd try and take
a stab at this naming thing. I've taken James's idea and proposed an
implementation here:

The idea would be that the THT code for the service deployment would
end up in something like:


Additionally I took a stab at combining the puppet/docker service
definitions for the aodh services in a similar structure to start
reducing the overhead we've had from maintaining the docker/puppet
implementations seperately.  You can see the patch
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/611188/ for an additional example of

Please let me know what you think.


> --
> -- James Slagle
> --
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to