Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
On 11/15/2013 11:15 AM, Jason Dunsmore wrote: Great description of Heat vs. Solum! This belongs in the FAQs of both projects IMO. This question is bound to keep coming up (for good reason). Indeed, Angus' descriptions as well as many of the other folks on this thread were great and definitely helped me delineate where the boundaries are. I will go ahead and work with some other folks to get the above FAQ fleshed out on the wiki (or the solum.io site I suppose...) All the best, and thanks for all the great responses. -jay ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
Great description of Heat vs. Solum! This belongs in the FAQs of both projects IMO. This question is bound to keep coming up (for good reason). On Thu, Nov 14 2013, Angus Salkeld wrote: > On 14/11/13 13:41 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: >>So while I have been on vacation, I've been thinking about Solum and Heat. >> >> And I have some lingering questions in my mind that make me question >> whether a new server project is actually necessary at all, and >> whether we really should just be targeting innovation and resources >> towards the Heat project. >> >> What exactly is Solum's API going to control that is not already >> represented in Heat's API and the HOT templating language? At this >> point, I'm really not sure, and I'm hoping that we can discuss this >> important topic before going any further with Solum. Right now, I >> see so much overlap that I'm questioning where the differences >> really are. >> >>Thoughts? > > I am very happy with how other projects have built on top > of heat. I think one reason this happens is Heat is trying > to focus on one main problem - Orchestrating restful resources. > > If we stick to this (and we are not overly opinionated) this > fosters other projects to develop on top. If we were in > a situation where Heat included solum's features it might > hinder Heat's adoption for other usecases. > > To me solum brings an opionated view to the world where > there is a specific way of creating/managing applications/services > that may not appeal to everyone. Hopefully it will apeal > to lots though! (just a particular user). > > One of Heat's main jobs is to make developing projects like solum, > tuskar, tripleO, trove & xlcloud easier to implement. > > And these projects will encourage more exciting projects further > up the stack. The further up the stack we go the more inovation > we can inspire. It all starts with building reliable simple > building blocks that can be easily used. > > > -Angus > >>-jay >> >>___ >>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 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 01:41:22PM -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: > So while I have been on vacation, I've been thinking about Solum and Heat. > > And I have some lingering questions in my mind that make me question > whether a new server project is actually necessary at all, and > whether we really should just be targeting innovation and resources > towards the Heat project. > > What exactly is Solum's API going to control that is not already > represented in Heat's API and the HOT templating language? At this > point, I'm really not sure, and I'm hoping that we can discuss this > important topic before going any further with Solum. Right now, I > see so much overlap that I'm questioning where the differences > really are. Heat has always been primarily focussed on infrastructure orchestration, and we've resisted implementing PaaSish functionality directly inside Heat, because it's always been considered something to be layered on top of Heat (deployed via not implemented by), not something we should prescribe a specific implementation of. So I argue there is not "so much overlap", Solum has a different scope to Heat, and it will leverage Heat for some aspects of it's implementation (similar to TripleO, Trove, and what is being proposed for Savanna). I view this as a success for Heat, and an indication that we're providing sufficiently flexible interfaces to allow users with very different requirements to build on top of our orchestration functionality. I think a very powerful characteristic of OpenStack is that we have multiple separate, but closely integrated components. IMO this fits well with traditional unix philosophies and sane engineering practices (modularity, composition, simplicity). Steve ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
On 11/14/2013 11:41 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: So while I have been on vacation, I've been thinking about Solum and Heat. And I have some lingering questions in my mind that make me question whether a new server project is actually necessary at all, and whether we really should just be targeting innovation and resources towards the Heat project. What exactly is Solum's API going to control that is not already represented in Heat's API and the HOT templating language? At this point, I'm really not sure, and I'm hoping that we can discuss this important topic before going any further with Solum. Right now, I see so much overlap that I'm questioning where the differences really are. Thoughts? -jay Jay, After some conversation with other heat-core folks, I am confident we don't want to implement the API contained here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Solum/API Most importantly, it would complicate "how to use heat" which is a question we are constantly answering upstream and down. I personally feel this would drive adopters away from Heat. We want people to adopt Heat, and one key way of achieving that goal is keeping it simple and doing a bang-up job on orchestration (Do one thing, Do it well.). The linked API, while offering valuable use cases, is overkill for Heat's core mission. From a technical perspective, Heat offers a good composable building block which is the foundation of good engineering principles. It makes perfect sense for Solum to build out its implementation using Heat as an orchestration layer, rather then jamming Solum use-cases into Heat. Regards -steve ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
On 14/11/13 13:41 -0500, Jay Pipes wrote: So while I have been on vacation, I've been thinking about Solum and Heat. And I have some lingering questions in my mind that make me question whether a new server project is actually necessary at all, and whether we really should just be targeting innovation and resources towards the Heat project. What exactly is Solum's API going to control that is not already represented in Heat's API and the HOT templating language? At this point, I'm really not sure, and I'm hoping that we can discuss this important topic before going any further with Solum. Right now, I see so much overlap that I'm questioning where the differences really are. Thoughts? I am very happy with how other projects have built on top of heat. I think one reason this happens is Heat is trying to focus on one main problem - Orchestrating restful resources. If we stick to this (and we are not overly opinionated) this fosters other projects to develop on top. If we were in a situation where Heat included solum's features it might hinder Heat's adoption for other usecases. To me solum brings an opionated view to the world where there is a specific way of creating/managing applications/services that may not appeal to everyone. Hopefully it will apeal to lots though! (just a particular user). One of Heat's main jobs is to make developing projects like solum, tuskar, tripleO, trove & xlcloud easier to implement. And these projects will encourage more exciting projects further up the stack. The further up the stack we go the more inovation we can inspire. It all starts with building reliable simple building blocks that can be easily used. -Angus -jay ___ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
Hi, >1) Find all of the applications using PHP 5.4. in their stack and update them to PHP 5.4.+1 > a) test that the application still works using its built in test suites > b) if the PHP 5.4.+1 upgrade fails, go back to using PHP 5.4. for only the affected applications Actually I think Heat can do this. Software components in HOT templates can use Chef, puppet, SaltStack, so as these tools can do this Heat also is capable to do this. As soon as you can use stack update and supply new software component with all necessary automation scripts, you can upgrade the whole stack. That perfectly fits to Heat and I believe Solum is intended to use this Heat feature for upgrades and application roll-out. >2) Allow developers to deploy versions of a heat stack for testing, and then allow a release engineer to >easily convert that heat stack to a production version > a) Do that 3 times a day for 100 apps > b) run the integration test suites on the stack to verify that the production version is not bugged That is a good example of Solum usage. I think that was mentioned in yesterday discussion in Solum IRC chat, that there will be probably a concept of "promotion". So you can promote image to different stages and environments and Solum will have an API to describe these flows. That is where Solum adds a huge value as it introduces concepts which are absent in Heat. Ideas of "code", "build", "test" and "gates" are common in developers world of CI\CD rather then in DevOps world where Heat plays great role. >HEAT/HOT is orchestration of components - should it attempt to define the *when* and *why* of when stack >changes occur? Solum I see as providing a basis for the *when* and *why*, and relying on HEAT for the >*how*. I am not sure that Heat should add "why" and "when" into the syntax. I think it will overcomplicate HOT syntax. Currently there are dependencies and waitconditions available in HOT and this should be enough to describe deployments. Thanks Georgy On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Clayton Coleman wrote: > - Original Message - > > So while I have been on vacation, I've been thinking about Solum and > Heat. > > > > And I have some lingering questions in my mind that make me question > > whether a new server project is actually necessary at all, and whether > > we really should just be targeting innovation and resources towards the > > Heat project. > > > > What exactly is Solum's API going to control that is not already > > represented in Heat's API and the HOT templating language? At this > > point, I'm really not sure, and I'm hoping that we can discuss this > > important topic before going any further with Solum. Right now, I see so > > much overlap that I'm questioning where the differences really are. > > > > Thoughts? > > -jay > > A few interesting scenarios that I assume heat would not cover, for > discussion (trying to keep in mind what Georgy and others have said) > > 1) Find all of the applications using PHP 5.4. in their stack and > update them to PHP 5.4.+1 >a) test that the application still works using its built in test suites >b) if the PHP 5.4.+1 upgrade fails, go back to using PHP 5.4. > for only the affected applications > > 2) Allow developers to deploy versions of a heat stack for testing, and > then allow a release engineer to easily convert that heat stack to a > production version >a) Do that 3 times a day for 100 apps >b) run the integration test suites on the stack to verify that the > production version is not bugged > > 3) Generate a deployable glance image automatically and a new heat > template when a developer pushes a change to a source repository >a) Do that for 10k developers pushing changes 10x a day >d) Keep 3 glance images referenced in 90% of stacks, 10 glance images > referenced in 9% of stacks, and all glance images referenced by 1% of stacks > > A lot of Solum's precepts are based on the observation that there are > patterns in application development and lifecycle that work well for 90% of > developers 90% of the time. It is certainly possible to build custom > tooling around OpenStack that handle each of these scenarios... but each of > those are slightly different in ways that are typically historical rather > than technological. HEAT/HOT is orchestration of components - should it > attempt to define the *when* and *why* of when stack changes occur? Solum > I see as providing a basis for the *when* and *why*, and relying on HEAT > for the *how*. > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Georgy Okrokvertskhov Technical Program Manager, Cloud and Infrastructure Services, Mirantis http://www.mirantis.com Tel. +1 650 963 9828 Mob. +1 650 996 3284 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@l
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
Hi, That's an important question, and I've seen it being asked many times before, often regarding the Murano project, which also hides Heat templates under the hood: people were asking why do they need yet another abstraction layer on top of the familiar and powerful tool such as Heat. I believe that the difference is the target audience of the projects. It seems to me that Heat's primary users are the people who will write their own templates - or use the existing ones but having a deep understanding of how their work. Meanwhile, the end-users of Solum are application developers, they do not need (and, probably, do not want at all) to worry about infrastructure-specific tools, frameworks and APIs - and they are probably not going to write the Heat (or HOT) templates on their own: they need a higher-level tooling for that. And that is exactly the place where Solum will come into play, generating these templates for them. -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov 2013/11/14 Georgy Okrokvertskhov > Hi, > > I think that Heat is mostly focused on deployment even with new software > configs and convergence. HOT template is quite "static" description of > desired state we want to achieve and it is up to Heat engine how to achieve > this state. > > Solum is focused on managing the process of converting source code to some > deployable entity (image or container). The power of Solum is an ability to > fully describe and control the process of building and testing of > application. Some of the stages of build and testing process might require > actual deployment and stack creation, but this is not an ultimate goal of > the Solum. > > If someone will try to use just Heat for building process description they > will figure out quickly that they need different templates for different > build\testing stages. As Heat itself can't modify templates you will need > some external mechanism for template creation, and this is what Solum > actually does. > > Thanks > Georgy > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Christopher Armstrong < > chris.armstr...@rackspace.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sam Alba wrote: >> >>> Hi Jay, >>> >>> I think Heat is an ingredient for Solum. When you build a PaaS, you >>> need to control the app at different levels: >>> >>> #1 describing your app (basically your stack) >>> #2 Pushing your code >>> #3 Deploying it >>> #4 Controlling the runtime (restart, get logs, scale, changing >>> resources allocation, etc...) >>> >>> I think Heat is a major component for step 3. But I think Heat's job >>> ends at the end of the deployment (the status of the stack is >>> "COMPLETED" in Heat after processing the template correctly). It's >>> nice though to rely on Heat's template generation for describing the >>> stack, it's one more thing to delegate to Heat. >>> >>> In other words, I see Heat as an engine for deployment (at least in >>> the context of Solum) and have something on top to manage the other >>> steps. >>> >> >> I'd say that Heat does (or should do) more than just the initial >> deployment -- especially with recent discussion around healing / >> convergence. >> >> -- >> IRC: radix >> Christopher Armstrong >> Rackspace >> >> ___ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > > > -- > Georgy Okrokvertskhov > Technical Program Manager, > Cloud and Infrastructure Services, > Mirantis > http://www.mirantis.com > Tel. +1 650 963 9828 > Mob. +1 650 996 3284 > > ___ > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
- Original Message - > So while I have been on vacation, I've been thinking about Solum and Heat. > > And I have some lingering questions in my mind that make me question > whether a new server project is actually necessary at all, and whether > we really should just be targeting innovation and resources towards the > Heat project. > > What exactly is Solum's API going to control that is not already > represented in Heat's API and the HOT templating language? At this > point, I'm really not sure, and I'm hoping that we can discuss this > important topic before going any further with Solum. Right now, I see so > much overlap that I'm questioning where the differences really are. > > Thoughts? > -jay A few interesting scenarios that I assume heat would not cover, for discussion (trying to keep in mind what Georgy and others have said) 1) Find all of the applications using PHP 5.4. in their stack and update them to PHP 5.4.+1 a) test that the application still works using its built in test suites b) if the PHP 5.4.+1 upgrade fails, go back to using PHP 5.4. for only the affected applications 2) Allow developers to deploy versions of a heat stack for testing, and then allow a release engineer to easily convert that heat stack to a production version a) Do that 3 times a day for 100 apps b) run the integration test suites on the stack to verify that the production version is not bugged 3) Generate a deployable glance image automatically and a new heat template when a developer pushes a change to a source repository a) Do that for 10k developers pushing changes 10x a day d) Keep 3 glance images referenced in 90% of stacks, 10 glance images referenced in 9% of stacks, and all glance images referenced by 1% of stacks A lot of Solum's precepts are based on the observation that there are patterns in application development and lifecycle that work well for 90% of developers 90% of the time. It is certainly possible to build custom tooling around OpenStack that handle each of these scenarios... but each of those are slightly different in ways that are typically historical rather than technological. HEAT/HOT is orchestration of components - should it attempt to define the *when* and *why* of when stack changes occur? Solum I see as providing a basis for the *when* and *why*, and relying on HEAT for the *how*. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
Hi, I think that Heat is mostly focused on deployment even with new software configs and convergence. HOT template is quite "static" description of desired state we want to achieve and it is up to Heat engine how to achieve this state. Solum is focused on managing the process of converting source code to some deployable entity (image or container). The power of Solum is an ability to fully describe and control the process of building and testing of application. Some of the stages of build and testing process might require actual deployment and stack creation, but this is not an ultimate goal of the Solum. If someone will try to use just Heat for building process description they will figure out quickly that they need different templates for different build\testing stages. As Heat itself can't modify templates you will need some external mechanism for template creation, and this is what Solum actually does. Thanks Georgy On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Christopher Armstrong < chris.armstr...@rackspace.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sam Alba wrote: > >> Hi Jay, >> >> I think Heat is an ingredient for Solum. When you build a PaaS, you >> need to control the app at different levels: >> >> #1 describing your app (basically your stack) >> #2 Pushing your code >> #3 Deploying it >> #4 Controlling the runtime (restart, get logs, scale, changing >> resources allocation, etc...) >> >> I think Heat is a major component for step 3. But I think Heat's job >> ends at the end of the deployment (the status of the stack is >> "COMPLETED" in Heat after processing the template correctly). It's >> nice though to rely on Heat's template generation for describing the >> stack, it's one more thing to delegate to Heat. >> >> In other words, I see Heat as an engine for deployment (at least in >> the context of Solum) and have something on top to manage the other >> steps. >> > > I'd say that Heat does (or should do) more than just the initial > deployment -- especially with recent discussion around healing / > convergence. > > -- > IRC: radix > Christopher Armstrong > Rackspace > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Georgy Okrokvertskhov Technical Program Manager, Cloud and Infrastructure Services, Mirantis http://www.mirantis.com Tel. +1 650 963 9828 Mob. +1 650 996 3284 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
Hi Jay, I can say I am still new in Solum team, still reading the extensive documentation team has created and understanding it. I believe Solum should be considered an Application project than a server project. I understand it will be using Heat and HOT to very good extent and there are overlapping factors. Saying that it has multiple aspects like CI/CD, Git Push, Integration with common IDE’s (Eclipse, IntelliJ, etc) and more important Application lifecycle management. This is certainly an important initiative in OpenStack ecosystem to progress towards PaaS in real sense, which will certainly help other projects evolve, mature with the expectations which were never there, one common example is the key management facilities often discussed in the team. Echo Adrian, about Solum being complimentory to Heat, at the same time I can see some other projects evolve since Solum will project the kind of use-cases that currently are not visible or considered. Best Regards, Swapnil On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Adrian Otto wrote: > Jay, > > Thanks for the great question. They really are different. > > Heat's mission (correct me if there is a more recent one) is: > > "To explicitly model the relationships between OpenStack resources of all > kinds; and to harness those models, expressed in forms accessible to both > humans and machines, to manage infrastructure resources throughout the > lifecycle of applications." > > Solum is about three things that are largely outside the scope of that > mission: > > Developer Productivity > Application Portability > Language / Application Stack Flexibility and Tooling / Add-On Extensibility > > These are explained further on the wiki[1]. > > The key difference is a focus on an Application as an entity, and how it > integrates with the application developer's workflow. It's a way to make > OpenStack clouds more attractive for Application Developers. Things like > integration with CI, gating, and promotion through environments is where > Solum is concerned. We want Application Developers to be able to deploy > code to openstack *without* modeling their application in a template (for > the general case) and have that template generated for them. > > Why focus on making life easy for Application Developers? Because this is > a key to the future of the OpenStack user community. Operators of OpenStack > Clouds want to be able to serve that market, and currently struggle to fill > this gap, both for private and public cloud use cases. > > The parts of Solum that overlap with Heat actually come directly from > Heat, because Solum treats Heat as an upstream component. It's an explicit > goal to not reproduce functionality in Solum that's already in OpenStack, > but provide an integration point to allow specific focus on this important > area. The goals around making applications of various languages easy to > build and run on OpenStack Clouds are things that are definitely beyond the > scope of what Heat is intended for. For example, Heat has no concept of a > build service. > > The list of differences extends beyond what I mentioned above, but those > are the key ones. We contribute to both projects, so we don't view it as > competitive at all. We see them as complimentary. > > Adrian > > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Solum > > On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Jay Pipes > wrote: > > > So while I have been on vacation, I've been thinking about Solum and > Heat. > > > > And I have some lingering questions in my mind that make me question > whether a new server project is actually necessary at all, and whether we > really should just be targeting innovation and resources towards the Heat > project. > > > > What exactly is Solum's API going to control that is not already > represented in Heat's API and the HOT templating language? At this point, > I'm really not sure, and I'm hoping that we can discuss this important > topic before going any further with Solum. Right now, I see so much overlap > that I'm questioning where the differences really are. > > > > Thoughts? > > -jay > > > > ___ > > 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 > ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
Hi Jay, I think Heat is an ingredient for Solum. When you build a PaaS, you need to control the app at different levels: #1 describing your app (basically your stack) #2 Pushing your code #3 Deploying it #4 Controlling the runtime (restart, get logs, scale, changing resources allocation, etc...) I think Heat is a major component for step 3. But I think Heat's job ends at the end of the deployment (the status of the stack is "COMPLETED" in Heat after processing the template correctly). It's nice though to rely on Heat's template generation for describing the stack, it's one more thing to delegate to Heat. In other words, I see Heat as an engine for deployment (at least in the context of Solum) and have something on top to manage the other steps. - Sam On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > So while I have been on vacation, I've been thinking about Solum and Heat. > > And I have some lingering questions in my mind that make me question whether > a new server project is actually necessary at all, and whether we really > should just be targeting innovation and resources towards the Heat project. > > What exactly is Solum's API going to control that is not already represented > in Heat's API and the HOT templating language? At this point, I'm really not > sure, and I'm hoping that we can discuss this important topic before going > any further with Solum. Right now, I see so much overlap that I'm > questioning where the differences really are. > > Thoughts? > -jay > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- @sam_alba ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
Jay, Thanks for the great question. They really are different. Heat's mission (correct me if there is a more recent one) is: "To explicitly model the relationships between OpenStack resources of all kinds; and to harness those models, expressed in forms accessible to both humans and machines, to manage infrastructure resources throughout the lifecycle of applications." Solum is about three things that are largely outside the scope of that mission: Developer Productivity Application Portability Language / Application Stack Flexibility and Tooling / Add-On Extensibility These are explained further on the wiki[1]. The key difference is a focus on an Application as an entity, and how it integrates with the application developer's workflow. It's a way to make OpenStack clouds more attractive for Application Developers. Things like integration with CI, gating, and promotion through environments is where Solum is concerned. We want Application Developers to be able to deploy code to openstack *without* modeling their application in a template (for the general case) and have that template generated for them. Why focus on making life easy for Application Developers? Because this is a key to the future of the OpenStack user community. Operators of OpenStack Clouds want to be able to serve that market, and currently struggle to fill this gap, both for private and public cloud use cases. The parts of Solum that overlap with Heat actually come directly from Heat, because Solum treats Heat as an upstream component. It's an explicit goal to not reproduce functionality in Solum that's already in OpenStack, but provide an integration point to allow specific focus on this important area. The goals around making applications of various languages easy to build and run on OpenStack Clouds are things that are definitely beyond the scope of what Heat is intended for. For example, Heat has no concept of a build service. The list of differences extends beyond what I mentioned above, but those are the key ones. We contribute to both projects, so we don't view it as competitive at all. We see them as complimentary. Adrian [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Solum On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > So while I have been on vacation, I've been thinking about Solum and Heat. > > And I have some lingering questions in my mind that make me question whether > a new server project is actually necessary at all, and whether we really > should just be targeting innovation and resources towards the Heat project. > > What exactly is Solum's API going to control that is not already represented > in Heat's API and the HOT templating language? At this point, I'm really not > sure, and I'm hoping that we can discuss this important topic before going > any further with Solum. Right now, I see so much overlap that I'm questioning > where the differences really are. > > Thoughts? > -jay > > ___ > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sam Alba wrote: > Hi Jay, > > I think Heat is an ingredient for Solum. When you build a PaaS, you > need to control the app at different levels: > > #1 describing your app (basically your stack) > #2 Pushing your code > #3 Deploying it > #4 Controlling the runtime (restart, get logs, scale, changing > resources allocation, etc...) > > I think Heat is a major component for step 3. But I think Heat's job > ends at the end of the deployment (the status of the stack is > "COMPLETED" in Heat after processing the template correctly). It's > nice though to rely on Heat's template generation for describing the > stack, it's one more thing to delegate to Heat. > > In other words, I see Heat as an engine for deployment (at least in > the context of Solum) and have something on top to manage the other > steps. > I'd say that Heat does (or should do) more than just the initial deployment -- especially with recent discussion around healing / convergence. -- IRC: radix Christopher Armstrong Rackspace ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Solum/Heat] Is Solum really necessary?
So while I have been on vacation, I've been thinking about Solum and Heat. And I have some lingering questions in my mind that make me question whether a new server project is actually necessary at all, and whether we really should just be targeting innovation and resources towards the Heat project. What exactly is Solum's API going to control that is not already represented in Heat's API and the HOT templating language? At this point, I'm really not sure, and I'm hoping that we can discuss this important topic before going any further with Solum. Right now, I see so much overlap that I'm questioning where the differences really are. Thoughts? -jay ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
