Hi Thomas, Can you share some documentation of what you're doing right now with TOSCA-compliant layer? We would like to join to this effort.
Thanks, Dmitry On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Thomas Spatzier < thomas.spatz...@de.ibm.com> wrote: > Excerpt from Zane Bitter's message on 26/03/2014 02:26:42: > > > From: Zane Bitter <zbit...@redhat.com> > > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > Date: 26/03/2014 02:27 > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Murano][Heat] MuranoPL questions? > > > > <snip> > > > > Cloud administrators are usually technical guys that are capable of > > > learning HOT and writing YAML templates. They know exact configuration > > > of their cloud (what services are available, what is the version of > > > OpenStack cloud is running) and generally understands how OpenStack > > > works. They also know about software they intent to install. If such > guy > > > wants to install Drupal he knows exactly that he needs HOT template > > > describing Fedora VM with Apache + PHP + MySQL + Drupal itself. It is > > > not a problem for him to write such HOT template. > > > > I'm aware that TOSCA has these types of constraints, and in fact I > > suggested to the TOSCA TC that maybe this is where we should draw the > > line between Heat and some TOSCA-compatible service: HOT should be a > > concrete description of exactly what you're going to get, whereas some > > other service (in this case Murano) would act as the constraints solver. > > e.g. something like an image name would not be hardcoded in a Murano > > template, you have some constraints about which operating system and > > what versions should be allowed, and it would pick one and pass it to > > Heat. So I am interested in this approach. > > I can just support Zane's statements above. We are working on exactly those > issues in the TOSCA YAML definition, so it would be ideal to just > collaborate on this. As Zane said, there currently is a thinking that some > TOSCA-compliant layer could be a (maybe thin) layer above Heat that > resolves a more abstract (thus more portable) template into something > concrete, executable. We have started developing code (early versions are > on stackforge already) to find out the details. > > > > > The worst outcome here would be to end up with something that was > > equivalent to TOSCA but not easily translatable to the TOSCA Simple > > Profile YAML format (currently a Working Draft). Where 'easily > > translatable' preferably means 'by just changing some names'. I can't > > comment on whether this is the case as things stand. > > > > The TOSCA Simple Profile in YAML is a working draft at the moment, so we > are pretty much open for any input. So let's see to get the right folks > together and get it right. Since the Murano folks have indicated before > that they are evaluating the option to join the OASIS TC, I am optimistic > that we can get the streams together. Having implementation work going on > here in this community in parallel to the standards work, and both streams > inspiring each other, will be fun :-) > > > Regards, > Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > 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