Left my comments in https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/taskflow-mistral.
@Changbin, I think the most interesting section for you is “What’s Different”. Thanks. Hope this helps. If it doesn’t then let us know your specific questions. @Joshua, thanks for your input on architecture. At a high-level it makes sense. We need to keep discussing it and switch to details. For that reason, like I said before, we want to create a very very simple taskflow based prototype (in progress). Then we’ll have a chance to think how to evolve TaskFlow properly so that it fits Mistral needs. Renat Akhmerov @ Mirantis Inc. On 15 Mar 2014, at 00:31, Joshua Harlow <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure, I can try to help, > > I started https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/taskflow-mistral so that we can > all work on this. > > Although I'd rather not make architecture for mistral (cause that doesn't > seem like an appropriate thing to do, for me to tell mistral what to do with > its architecture), but I'm all for working on it together as a community > (instead of me producing something that likely won't have much value). > > Let us work on the above etherpad together and hopefully get some good ideas > flowing :-) > > From: Stan Lagun <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, March 14, 2014 at 12:11 AM > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Mistral][Taskflow][all] Mistral + taskflow > >> Joshua, >> >> why wait? Why not just help Renat with his research on that integration and >> bring your own vision to the table? Write some 1-page architecture >> description on how Mistral can be built on top of TaskFlow and we discuss >> pros and cons. In would be much more productive. >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Joshua Harlow <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Thanks Renat, >>> >>> I'll keep waiting, and hoping that we can figure this out for everyone's >>> benefit. Because in the end we are all much stronger working together and >>> much weaker when not. >>> >>> Sent from my really tiny device... >>> >>> On Mar 13, 2014, at 11:41 PM, "Renat Akhmerov" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> Mistral and TaskFlow are significantly different technologies. With >>>> different set of capabilities, with different target audience. >>>> >>>> We may not be doing enough to clarify all the differences, I admit that. >>>> The challenge here is that people tend to judge having minimal amount of >>>> information about both things. As always, devil in the details. Stan is >>>> 100% right, “seems” is not an appropriate word here. Java seems to be >>>> similar to C++ at the first glance for those who have little or no >>>> knowledge about them. >>>> >>>> To be more consistent I won’t be providing all the general considerations >>>> that I’ve been using so far (in etherpads, MLs, in personal discussions), >>>> it doesn’t seem to be working well, at least not with everyone. So to make >>>> it better, like I said in that different thread: we’re evaluating TaskFlow >>>> now and will share the results. Basically, it’s what Boris said about what >>>> could and could not be implemented in TaskFlow. But since the very >>>> beginning of the project I never abandoned the idea of using TaskFlow some >>>> day when it’s possible. >>>> >>>> So, again: Joshua, we hear you, we’re working in that direction. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm reminded of >>>>>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/RenatAkhmerov/mistral-hong-kong-unconference-trac >>>>>>>> k/2 where it seemed like we were doing much better collaboration, what >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>> happened to break this continuity? >>>> >>>> Not sure why you think something is broken. We just want to finish the >>>> pilot with all the ‘must’ things working in it. This is a plan. Then we >>>> can revisit and change absolutely everything. Remember, to the great >>>> extent this is research. Joshua, this is what we talked about and agreed >>>> on many times. I know you might be anxious about that given the fact it’s >>>> taking more time than planned but our vision of the project has >>>> drastically evolved and gone far far beyond the initial Convection >>>> proposal. So the initial idea of POC is no longer relevant. Even though we >>>> finished the first version in December, we realized it wasn’t something >>>> that should have been shared with the community since it lacked some >>>> essential things. >>>> >>>> >>>> Renat Akhmerov >>>> @ Mirantis Inc. >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sincerely yours >> Stanislav (Stan) Lagun >> Senior Developer >> Mirantis >> 35b/3, Vorontsovskaya St. >> Moscow, Russia >> Skype: stanlagun >> www.mirantis.com >> [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
