On 19/03/14 04:32 +0400, Ruslan Kamaldinov wrote:
Here is my 2 cents:
I personally think that evolving Heat/HOT to what Murano needs for it's use
cases is the best way to make PaaS layer of OpenStack to look and feel as a
complete and fully integrated solution.
Standardising these things in a project like TOSCA is another direction we all
should follow. I think that TOSCA is the place where developers (like us),
application developers and enterprises can collaborate to produce a common
standard for application lifecycle management in the clouds.
But before Murano contributors jump into direction of extending HOT to the goal
of application (or system) lifecycle management, we need an agreement that this
is the right direction for Heat/HOT/DSL and the Orchestration program. There are
a lot of use cases that current HOT doesn't seem to be the right tool to solve.
As it was said before, it's not a problem to collaborate on extending it those
use cases. I'm just unsure if Heat team would like these use cases to be solved
with Heat/HOT/DSL. For instance:
- definition of an application which is already exposed via REST API. Think of
something like Sahara (ex. Savanna) or Trove developed in-house for internal
company needs. app publishers wouldn't be happy if they'll be forced to
develop a new resource for Heat
I think we could develop *something* like amazon's custom resource:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/crpg-walkthrough.html
- definition of billing rules for an application
The way to integrate with how OpenStack does this is to emit rpc notifications
that ceilometer picks up. Heat does this now for stacks and autoscaling groups.
I think what you might be getting at is possibly sending resource level
infomation
so the operator could bill on specific resource types/applications.
So that is the metering, but the billing rules should be elsewhere (a consumer
of ceilometer).
If everyone agrees that this is the direction we all should follow, that we
should expand HOT/DSL to that scope, that HOT should be the answer on "can you
express it?", then awesome - we can start speaking about implementation details.
If those two items are the only new features to Heat then I am sold.
-Angus
If it's not the direction these projects should follow then at least finding
where Heat ends and Murano starts to avoid any functionality duplication would
be great.
Thanks,
Ruslan
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:07 AM, Keith Bray <[email protected]> wrote:
Georgy,
In consideration of the "can you express it" instead of the "who will
generate it," I see Heat's HOT evolving to support the expression of complex
multi-tier architectures and applications (I would argue you can already do
this today, perhaps with some additional features desired, e.g. Ability to
define cloud workflows and workflow execution rules which could come when we
have a workflow service like Mistral). Therefore, I would encourage Murano
contributors to consider whether they can help make Heat sufficiently cover
desired use cases. I have never viewed Heat templates as isolated
components of a multi-tier architecture. Instead, a single template or a
combination of master/subordinate templates together (using references,
nesting, or inclusion) could express the complete architecture, both
infrastructure and applications.
If I've read your previous comments and threads correctly, you desire a way
to express System Lifecycle Management across multiple related applications
or components, whereby you view the System as a grouping of independently
developed and/or deployed (but systematically related) "components," whereby
you view Components as individual disconnected Heat templates that
independently describe different application stacks of the System. Did I
get that correct? If so, perhaps the discussion here is one of "scope" of
what can or should be expressed in a Heat template. Is it correct to state
that your argument is that a separate system (such as Murano) should be used
to express System Lifecycle Management as I've defined it here? If so, why
could we not use the Heat DSL to also define the System? The System
definition could be logically separated out into its own text file... But,
we'd have a common DSL syntax and semantics for both lower level and higher
level component interaction (a building block effect of sorts).
As for "who will generate it," ( with "it" being the Heat multi-tier
application/infrastructure definition) I think that question will go through
a lot more evolution and could be any number of sources: e.g. Solum, Murano,
Horizon, Template Author with a text editor, etc.
Basically, I'm a +1 for as few DSLs as possible. I support the position that
we should evolve HOT if needed vs. having two separate DSLs that are both
related to expressing application and infrastructure semantics.
Workflow is quite interesting ... Should we be able to express imperative
workflow semantics in HOT? Or, should we only be able to declare workflow
configurations that get configured in a service like Mistral whereby
Mistral's execution of a workflow may need to invoke Heat hooks or Stack
Updates? Or, some other solution?
I look forward to a design discussion on all this at the summit... This is
fun stuff to think about!
-Keith
From: Georgy Okrokvertskhov <[email protected]>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:49 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Murano][Heat] MuranoPL questions?
I see this in the following way - who will generate HOT template for my
complex multi-tier applications when I have only templates for components?
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
