Re: [openstack-dev] [Glare][Heat][TripleO] Heat artifact type

[Fox, Kevin M]

I have a preference towards option 2 as well. I usually use templates with all 
the logic in it, and an environment file with just the specific parameters 
defined for launching an instance of the template so I can repeatedly 
deploy/delete/redeploy it.

I've got a good template set I think that would be awesome to see in a glare 
artefact.

Could this template set be wrapped up:
https://github.com/EMSL-MSC/heat-templates/tree/master/cfn/lib

And the main entrypoint template is:
https://github.com/EMSL-MSC/heat-templates/blob/master/cfn/lib/SimpleServer.yaml

Documentation on how to use it is here:
https://github.com/EMSL-MSC/heat-templates/blob/master/cfn/lib/SimpleServer.txt

With it implemented with Option 2, the user can just copy the two example 
environments at the bottom of the docs there, tweak it slightly and launch some 
fairly advanced servers.

Thanks,
Kevin

From: Mikhail Fedosin [mfedo...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 6:58 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glare][Heat][TripleO] Heat artifact type



On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Qiming Teng 
<teng...@linux.vnet.ibm.com<mailto:teng...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 06:44:06PM +0300, Oleksii Chuprykov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Today it was announced that Glare is ready for public review
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-July/099553.html So
> we are ready to start working on integration Heat with Glare and
> implementing a POC. After discussions with Glare team we see two design
> options:
>
> 1) Create one artifact type that will contain template, nested templates
> and environments.
> Pros: It is easy to maintain integrity. Since artifact is immutable, we can
> guarantee the consistency and prevent from accidentally removing of
> dependent environment.
> Cons: If we need to add new environments to use them with template, we need
> to create new artifact.
>
> 2) Create 2 artifact types: environment and template.
> Pros: It is easy to add new environments. You just need to create new
> dependency from template artifact to environment one.
> Cons: Some environment can be (mistakenly) removed, and template that have
> dependencies on it will be in inconsistent state.

Option 2 looks more flexible to me. I'm not sure we are encouraging
users to introduce or rely on a hard dependency from a template to an
environment file. With that, it is still good to know whether glare
supports the concept of 'reference' where a referenced artifact cannot
be deleted.

Hey!

Indeed, option 2 is more flexible, but in this case users have to manually 
control dependencies, which is may be hard sometimes. Also, initially Glare 
won't support 'hard' dependencies, this feature will be added in next version, 
because it requires additional discussions. For this reason I recommend option 
1 and let Glare control template consistency for you, it won't allow users to 
break anything.

Best,
Mike


 - Qiming

> So we want to hear your opinions and suggestions on the matter. Thanks in
> advance!
>
> Best regards,
> Oleksii Chuprykov


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: 
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Glare][Heat][TripleO] Heat artifact type

[Randall Burt]

FWIW, option 2 is almost required unless we plan to be able to bundle multiple 
environments with a single template. While having a single environment for a 
single template can be useful, the even *more* useful scenario (and the primary 
one driving the development of environments initially) is when you have options 
as to how a template behaves (use Trove for the backend or pop vms and software 
config to install a database). IMO, you'd want to de-couple environments from 
the templates given that multiple environment could work for the same template.
 
On Jul 20, 2016, at 8:58 AM, "Mikhail Fedosin" 
 wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Qiming Teng  
> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 06:44:06PM +0300, Oleksii Chuprykov wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > Today it was announced that Glare is ready for public review
> > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-July/099553.html So
> > we are ready to start working on integration Heat with Glare and
> > implementing a POC. After discussions with Glare team we see two design
> > options:
> >
> > 1) Create one artifact type that will contain template, nested templates
> > and environments.
> > Pros: It is easy to maintain integrity. Since artifact is immutable, we can
> > guarantee the consistency and prevent from accidentally removing of
> > dependent environment.
> > Cons: If we need to add new environments to use them with template, we need
> > to create new artifact.
> >
> > 2) Create 2 artifact types: environment and template.
> > Pros: It is easy to add new environments. You just need to create new
> > dependency from template artifact to environment one.
> > Cons: Some environment can be (mistakenly) removed, and template that have
> > dependencies on it will be in inconsistent state.
> 
> Option 2 looks more flexible to me. I'm not sure we are encouraging
> users to introduce or rely on a hard dependency from a template to an
> environment file. With that, it is still good to know whether glare
> supports the concept of 'reference' where a referenced artifact cannot
> be deleted.
> 
> Hey! 
> 
> Indeed, option 2 is more flexible, but in this case users have to manually 
> control dependencies, which is may be hard sometimes. Also, initially Glare 
> won't support 'hard' dependencies, this feature will be added in next 
> version, because it requires additional discussions. For this reason I 
> recommend option 1 and let Glare control template consistency for you, it 
> won't allow users to break anything. 
> 
> Best,
> Mike
>  
> 
>  - Qiming
> 
> > So we want to hear your opinions and suggestions on the matter. Thanks in
> > advance!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Oleksii Chuprykov
> 
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Glare][Heat][TripleO] Heat artifact type

[Mikhail Fedosin]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Qiming Teng 
wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 06:44:06PM +0300, Oleksii Chuprykov wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > Today it was announced that Glare is ready for public review
> > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-July/099553.html
> So
> > we are ready to start working on integration Heat with Glare and
> > implementing a POC. After discussions with Glare team we see two design
> > options:
> >
> > 1) Create one artifact type that will contain template, nested templates
> > and environments.
> > Pros: It is easy to maintain integrity. Since artifact is immutable, we
> can
> > guarantee the consistency and prevent from accidentally removing of
> > dependent environment.
> > Cons: If we need to add new environments to use them with template, we
> need
> > to create new artifact.
> >
> > 2) Create 2 artifact types: environment and template.
> > Pros: It is easy to add new environments. You just need to create new
> > dependency from template artifact to environment one.
> > Cons: Some environment can be (mistakenly) removed, and template that
> have
> > dependencies on it will be in inconsistent state.
>
> Option 2 looks more flexible to me. I'm not sure we are encouraging
> users to introduce or rely on a hard dependency from a template to an
> environment file. With that, it is still good to know whether glare
> supports the concept of 'reference' where a referenced artifact cannot
> be deleted.
>

Hey!

Indeed, option 2 is more flexible, but in this case users have to manually
control dependencies, which is may be hard sometimes. Also, initially Glare
won't support 'hard' dependencies, this feature will be added in next
version, because it requires additional discussions. For this reason I
recommend option 1 and let Glare control template consistency for you, it
won't allow users to break anything.

Best,
Mike


>
>  - Qiming
>

> > So we want to hear your opinions and suggestions on the matter. Thanks in
> > advance!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Oleksii Chuprykov
>
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] [Glare][Heat][TripleO] Heat artifact type

[Qiming Teng]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 06:44:06PM +0300, Oleksii Chuprykov wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> Today it was announced that Glare is ready for public review
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-July/099553.html So
> we are ready to start working on integration Heat with Glare and
> implementing a POC. After discussions with Glare team we see two design
> options:
> 
> 1) Create one artifact type that will contain template, nested templates
> and environments.
> Pros: It is easy to maintain integrity. Since artifact is immutable, we can
> guarantee the consistency and prevent from accidentally removing of
> dependent environment.
> Cons: If we need to add new environments to use them with template, we need
> to create new artifact.
> 
> 2) Create 2 artifact types: environment and template.
> Pros: It is easy to add new environments. You just need to create new
> dependency from template artifact to environment one.
> Cons: Some environment can be (mistakenly) removed, and template that have
> dependencies on it will be in inconsistent state.

Option 2 looks more flexible to me. I'm not sure we are encouraging
users to introduce or rely on a hard dependency from a template to an
environment file. With that, it is still good to know whether glare
supports the concept of 'reference' where a referenced artifact cannot
be deleted.

 - Qiming
 
> So we want to hear your opinions and suggestions on the matter. Thanks in
> advance!
> 
> Best regards,
> Oleksii Chuprykov


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [Glare][Heat][TripleO] Heat artifact type

[Oleksii Chuprykov]

Hello!

Today it was announced that Glare is ready for public review
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-July/099553.html So
we are ready to start working on integration Heat with Glare and
implementing a POC. After discussions with Glare team we see two design
options:

1) Create one artifact type that will contain template, nested templates
and environments.
Pros: It is easy to maintain integrity. Since artifact is immutable, we can
guarantee the consistency and prevent from accidentally removing of
dependent environment.
Cons: If we need to add new environments to use them with template, we need
to create new artifact.

2) Create 2 artifact types: environment and template.
Pros: It is easy to add new environments. You just need to create new
dependency from template artifact to environment one.
Cons: Some environment can be (mistakenly) removed, and template that have
dependencies on it will be in inconsistent state.

So we want to hear your opinions and suggestions on the matter. Thanks in
advance!

Best regards,
Oleksii Chuprykov
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev