On 14/04/16 10:16 -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Denis Egorenko <[email protected]> wrote:
Some of UI plugins, like murano-dashboard, needs to add extra parameters
https://github.com/openstack/murano-dashboard/blob/master/muranodashboard/local/local_settings.py.example
to local_settings file (which comes from Horizon).
My question is: Should puppet-horizon module provide those extra
parameters coming from each official UI plugins? or this kind of things
should come from specific a puppet-{ui-plugin}?
Well, not exactly puppet-{ui-plugin}. For example, we already have murano
module and it has manifests for UI plugin installation.
On a one side, in such way we are keeping all module related configuration
in one place.
On another side, all UI configuration probably should be placed in horizon
module. But in this case, we need to support in horizon module full
configuration for each UI plugin.
So, i think we can keep UI configuration in-place (in separate module) if we
have this module at all. For cases, when we need only support some UI
settings/plugins - we can keep it in puppet-horizon.
Thoughts?
Does Murano uses the same local_settings.py file as Horizon? If yes,
we might stop using puppet-murano to manage this file.
And maybe find a mechanism in puppet-horizon with a provider, so we
can have a plugin architecture like:
horizon::plugins::murano
horizon::plugins::foobar
that would use this provider to configure a common local_settings.py
and notify service on change, like we do for .conf files.
What do you think?
I like the sound of this, keeps the file managements central like all
the _config providers, while allowing each module to specify the
parts that only it knows or cares about.
-j
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
