On 04/02/2014 08:41 PM, Keith Bray wrote:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Heat/StackMetadata
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Heat/UI
-Keith
Keith,
Taking a look at the UI specification, I thought I'd take a look at
adding parameter grouping and ordering to the hot_spec.rst file. That
seems like a really nice constrained use case with a clear way to
validate that folks aren't adding magic to the template for their custom
environments. During that, I noticed it is is already implemented.
What is nice about this specific use case is it is something that can be
validated by the parser. For example, the parser could enforce that
parameters in the parameter-groups section actually exist as parameters
in the parameters section. Essentially this particular use case
*enforces* good heat template implementation without an opportunity for
HOT template developers to jam customized data blobs into the template.
Stack keywords on the other hand doesn't necessarily follow this model.
I understand the use case, but it would be possible to jam unstructured
metadata into the template. That said, the limitations on the jamming
custom metadata are one deep and it has a clear use case (categorization
of templates for support/UI rendering purposes).
I could be wrong, but I think the aversion to a general metadata section
is centered around the problem of different people doing different
things in a non-standardized way.
I think if we were to revisit the metadata proposal, one thing that
might lead to a more successful outcome is actually defining what goes
in the metadata, rather then allowing the metadata to be completely
free-form as the HOT developer sees fit to implement it.
For example just taking the keywords proposal:
metadata:
composed_of:
- wordpress
- mysql
architecture:
- lamp
Even though this metadata can't necessarily be validated, it can be
documented. I definitely have a -2 aversion to free-form metadata
structuring, and am +0 on allowing the information to be declared in a
non-validated way.
I don't believe the idea of structured metadata based upon real use
cases has really been explored or -2'ed.
Regards,
-steve
From: Lingxian Kong <anlin.k...@gmail.com <mailto:anlin.k...@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 9:31 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] metadata for a HOT
Is there any relevant wiki or specification doc?
2014-04-03 4:45 GMT+08:00 Mike Spreitzer <mspre...@us.ibm.com
<mailto:mspre...@us.ibm.com>>:
I would like to suggest that a metadata section be allowed at
the top level of a HOT. Note that while resources in a stack
can have metadata, there is no way to put metadata on a stack
itself. What do you think?
Thanks,
Mike
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
--
*---------------------------------------*
*Lingxian Kong*
Huawei Technologies Co.,LTD.
IT Product Line CloudOS PDU
China, Xi'an
Mobile: +86-18602962792
Email: konglingx...@huawei.com <mailto:konglingx...@huawei.com>;
anlin.k...@gmail.com <mailto:anlin.k...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
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
