On 03/05/2014 02:16 AM, Thomas Spatzier wrote:
Georgy Okrokvertskhov <gokrokvertsk...@mirantis.com> wrote on 05/03/2014
00:32:08:

From: Georgy Okrokvertskhov <gokrokvertsk...@mirantis.com>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: 05/03/2014 00:34
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Incubation Request: Murano

Hi Thomas, Zane,

Thank you for bringing TOSCA to the discussion. I think this is
important topic as it will help to find better alignment or even
future merge of Murano DSL and Heat templates. Murano DSL uses YAML
representation too, so we can easily merge use constructions from
Heat and probably any other YAML based TOSCA formats.

I will be glad to join TOSCA TC. Is there any formal process for that?
The first part is that your company must be a member of OASIS. If that is
the case, I think you can simply go to the TC page [1] and click a button
to join the TC. If your company is not yet a member, you could get in touch
with the TC chairs Paul Lipton and Simon Moser and ask for the best next
steps. We recently had people from GigaSpaces join the TC, and since they
are also doing very TOSCA aligned implementation in Cloudify, their input
will probably help a lot to advance TOSCA.

I also would like to use this opportunity and start conversation
with Heat team about Heat roadmap and feature set. As Thomas
mentioned in his previous e-mail TOSCA topology story is quite
covered by HOT. At the same time there are entities like Plans which
are covered by Murano. We had discussion about bringing workflows to
Heat engine before HK summit and it looks like that Heat team has no
plans to bring workflows into Heat. That is actually why we
mentioned Orchestration program as a potential place for Murano DSL
as Heat+Murano together will cover everything which is defined by TOSCA.
I remember the discussions about whether to bring workflows into Heat or
not. My personal opinion is that workflows are probably out of the scope of
Heat (i.e. everything but the derived orchestration flows the Heat engine
implements). So there could well be a layer on-top of Heat that lets Heat
deal with all topology-related declarative business and adds workflow-based
orchestration around it. TOSCA could be a way to describe the respective
overarching models and then hand the different processing tasks to the
right engine to deal with it.
My general take is workflow would fit in the Orchestration program, but not be integrated into the heat repo specifically. It would be a different repo, managed by the same orchestration program just as we have heat-cfntools and other repositories. Figuring out how to handle the who is the core team of people responsible for program's individual repositories is the most difficult aspect of making such a merge. For example, I'd not desire a bunch of folks from Murano +2/+A heat specific repos until they understood the code base in detail, or atleast the broad architecture. I think the same think applies in reverse from the Murano perspective. Ideally folks that are core on a specific program would need to figure out how to learn how to broadly review each repo (meaning the heat devs would have to come up to speed on murano and murano devs would have to come up to speed on heat. Learning a new code base is a big commitment for an already overtaxed core team.

I believe expanding our scope in this way would require TC approval.

The main reason I don't want workflow in the heat repo specifically is because it adds complication to Heat itself. We want Heat to be one nice tidy small set of code that does one thing really well. This makes it easy to improve, easy to deploy, and easy to learn!

These reasons are why, for example, we are continuing to push the autoscaling implementation out of Heat and into a separate repository over the next 1 to 2 cycles This on the other hand won't be an expansion of scope of the Orchestration program, because we already do autoscaling, we just want to make it more consumable.

Regards,
-steve


I think TOSCA initiative can be a great place to collaborate. I
think it will be possible then to use Simplified TOSCA format for
Application descriptions as TOSCA is intended to provide such
descriptions.
Is there a team who are driving TOSCA implementation in OpenStack
community? I feel that such team is necessary.
We started to implement a TOSCA YAML to HOT converter and our team member
Sahdev (IRC spzala) has recently submitted code for a new stackforge
project [2]. This is very initial, but could be a point to collaborate.

[1] https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tosca
[2] https://github.com/stackforge/heat-translator

Regards,
Thomas

Thanks
Georgy

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Spatzier
<thomas.spatz...@de.ibm.com
wrote:
Excerpt from Zane Bitter's message on 04/03/2014 23:16:21:
From: Zane Bitter <zbit...@redhat.com>
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: 04/03/2014 23:20
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Incubation Request: Murano

On 04/03/14 00:04, Georgy Okrokvertskhov wrote:
It so happens that the OASIS's TOSCA technical committee are working as
we speak on a "TOSCA Simple Profile" that will hopefully make things
easier to use and includes a YAML representation (the latter is great
IMHO, but the key to being able to do it is the former). Work is still
at a relatively early stage and in my experience they are very much
open
to input from implementers.
Nice, I was probably also writing a mail with this information at about
the
same time :-)
And yes, we are very much interested in feedback from implementers and
open
to suggestions. If we can find gaps and fill them with good proposals,
now
is the right time.

I would strongly encourage you to get involved in this effort (by
joining the TOSCA TC), and also to architect Murano in such a way that
it can accept input in multiple formats (this is something we are
making
good progress toward in Heat). Ideally the DSL format for Murano+Heat
should be a trivial translation away from the relevant parts of the
YAML
representation of TOSCA Simple Profile.
Right, having a straight-forward translation would be really desirable.
The
way to get there can actually be two-fold: (1) any feedback we get from
the
Murano folks on the TOSCA simple profile and YAML can help us to make
TOSCA
capable of addressing the right use cases, and (2) on the other hand make
sure the implementation goes in a direction that is in line with what
TOSCA
YAML will look like.

cheers,
Zane.

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

--
Georgy Okrokvertskhov
Architect,
OpenStack Platform Products,
Mirantis
http://www.mirantis.com
Tel. +1 650 963 9828
Mob. +1 650 996 3284_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to