Re: Rocket
That is one of its key benefits: the specification is separate from the implementation. That encourages good implementations, and readily allows for multiples. -John Sent from my location On Dec 5, 2014, at 7:20 PM, Dominic Hamon dha...@twopensource.com wrote: If it ends up being not open, then we'd have to. But they're clearly not going in that direction given they've already published it publicly and have requested feedback. I would strongly urge us to avoid this, however. A common spec is so much stronger than any individual one. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Arunabha Ghosh arunabha...@gmail.com wrote: Should CoreOS decide to adopt a governance model which is not open or what the Mesos community wants, does it make sense to adopt the Rocket spec and evolve it along with Mesos ? Having a documented container spec for Mesos which can evolve along with Mesos would in some ways be better than perhaps adopting Rocket's spec. Arunabha On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Dave Lester daveles...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, I'll take the discussion to the GitHub issue. On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi Dave, I actually can't remember is it on the github issue, email list or twitter feed, but definitely one of them. Tim St Clair just brought up Apache on #139, and I'm a +1 on that as well. Feel free to chime in on that Github issue you linked. Tim On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Dave Lester daveles...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Tim C, Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say Apache is one of the options mentioned? I don't see it it in the discussion thread for https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find it and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see. Dave On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi Tim, Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear from the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day one. Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe something along that line is most probable. As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to maintain as an containerizer option for us. Tim On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair tstcl...@redhat.com wrote: inline below From: Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io To: user@mesos.apache.org Cc: dev d...@mesos.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM Subject: Re: Rocket Hi Tim, I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point of the open container spec. I'm all over this like white on rice. I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well. Relationships alone won't cut it. Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with Docker...? Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance. Tim On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair tstcl...@redhat.com wrote: Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on establishing governance around the App Container spec? https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193 If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that we have say in the spec going forwards? Cheers, Tim - Original Message - From: Tobias Knaup t...@knaup.me To: user@mesos.apache.org Cc: dev d...@mesos.apache.org Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM Subject: Re: Rocket An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket). Here is the spec: https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use something else or come with its own. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon dha...@twopensource.com wrote: Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it. Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide value through a C++ implementation. I've created a JIRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on this. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote
Re: Rocket
Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on establishing governance around the App Container spec? https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193 If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that we have say in the spec going forwards? Cheers, Tim - Original Message - From: Tobias Knaup t...@knaup.me To: user@mesos.apache.org Cc: dev d...@mesos.apache.org Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM Subject: Re: Rocket An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket). Here is the spec: https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use something else or come with its own. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon dha...@twopensource.com wrote: Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it. Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide value through a C++ implementation. I've created a JIRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on this. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks! -- Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.* -- Cheers, Timothy St. Clair Red Hat Inc.
Re: Rocket
inline below - Original Message - From: Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io To: user@mesos.apache.org Cc: dev d...@mesos.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM Subject: Re: Rocket Hi Tim, I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point of the open container spec. I'm all over this like white on rice. I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well. Relationships alone won't cut it. Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with Docker...? Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance. Tim On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair tstcl...@redhat.com wrote: Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on establishing governance around the App Container spec? https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193 If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that we have say in the spec going forwards? Cheers, Tim - Original Message - From: Tobias Knaup t...@knaup.me To: user@mesos.apache.org Cc: dev d...@mesos.apache.org Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM Subject: Re: Rocket An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket). Here is the spec: https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use something else or come with its own. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon dha...@twopensource.com wrote: Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it. Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide value through a C++ implementation. I've created a JIRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on this. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/ ) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks! -- Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.* -- Cheers, Timothy St. Clair Red Hat Inc. -- Cheers, Timothy St. Clair Red Hat Inc.
Re: Rocket
Hi Tim, Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear from the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day one. Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe something along that line is most probable. As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to maintain as an containerizer option for us. Tim On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair tstcl...@redhat.com wrote: inline below From: Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io To: user@mesos.apache.org Cc: dev d...@mesos.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM Subject: Re: Rocket Hi Tim, I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point of the open container spec. I'm all over this like white on rice. I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well. Relationships alone won't cut it. Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with Docker...? Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance. Tim On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair tstcl...@redhat.com wrote: Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on establishing governance around the App Container spec? https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193 If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that we have say in the spec going forwards? Cheers, Tim - Original Message - From: Tobias Knaup t...@knaup.me To: user@mesos.apache.org Cc: dev d...@mesos.apache.org Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM Subject: Re: Rocket An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket). Here is the spec: https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use something else or come with its own. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon dha...@twopensource.com wrote: Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it. Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide value through a C++ implementation. I've created a JIRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on this. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks! -- Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.* -- Cheers, Timothy St. Clair Red Hat Inc. -- Cheers, Timothy St. Clair Red Hat Inc.
Re: Rocket
Thanks, I'll take the discussion to the GitHub issue. On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi Dave, I actually can't remember is it on the github issue, email list or twitter feed, but definitely one of them. Tim St Clair just brought up Apache on #139, and I'm a +1 on that as well. Feel free to chime in on that Github issue you linked. Tim On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Dave Lester daveles...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Tim C, Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say Apache is one of the options mentioned? I don't see it it in the discussion thread for https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find it and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see. Dave On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi Tim, Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear from the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day one. Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe something along that line is most probable. As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to maintain as an containerizer option for us. Tim On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair tstcl...@redhat.com wrote: inline below -- *From: *Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io *To: *user@mesos.apache.org *Cc: *dev d...@mesos.apache.org *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM *Subject: *Re: Rocket Hi Tim, I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point of the open container spec. I'm all over this like white on rice. I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well. Relationships alone won't cut it. Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with Docker...? Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance. Tim On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair tstcl...@redhat.com wrote: Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on establishing governance around the App Container spec? https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193 If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that we have say in the spec going forwards? Cheers, Tim - Original Message - From: Tobias Knaup t...@knaup.me To: user@mesos.apache.org Cc: dev d...@mesos.apache.org Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM Subject: Re: Rocket An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket). Here is the spec: https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use something else or come with its own. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon dha...@twopensource.com wrote: Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it. Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide value through a C++ implementation. I've created a JIRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on this. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks! -- Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.* -- Cheers, Timothy St. Clair Red Hat Inc. -- Cheers, Timothy St. Clair Red Hat Inc.
Rocket
Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks!
Re: Rocket
Huge +1 On 1 December 2014 at 11:10, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks!
Re: Rocket
This does sound promising. Though if it restricts one to hosts using systemd than I don¹t see much value in it over Docker. However no need to preclude it on choice of init process alone, plus it exercises the ContainerInfo structure some more. +1 From: Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io Reply-To: user@mesos.apache.org user@mesos.apache.org Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 2:10 PM To: dev d...@mesos.apache.org, user@mesos.apache.org user@mesos.apache.org Subject: Rocket Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Rocket
On Dec 1, 2014, at 11:22 AM, Niklas Nielsen nik...@mesosphere.io wrote: Huge +1 On 1 December 2014 at 11:10, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, We too are using Docker and find the monolithic nature to be obnoxious at times. If Rocket were easy to run side-by-side I'd certainly give it a whirl and switch to it if it works at least as well.
Re: Rocket
cool, yeah +1 The more container options means the more you need a solution like Mesos to run them all in =8^) ... or be able to run apps without them too... fantastic! On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Niklas Nielsen nik...@mesosphere.io wrote: Huge +1 On 1 December 2014 at 11:10, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks!
Re: Rocket
Absolutely... Cheers, Tim - Original Message - From: Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io To: dev d...@mesos.apache.org, user@mesos.apache.org Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 1:10:44 PM Subject: Rocket Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/ ) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks! -- Cheers, Timothy St. Clair Red Hat Inc.
Re: Rocket
Sounds great Tim! Do you know if they have published an API for the rocket toolset? Are we gonna rely on the command line interface? - Jie On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks!
Re: Rocket
+1 Sounds exciting! -- Tom Arnfeld Developer // DueDil On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jie Yu yujie@gmail.com wrote: Sounds great Tim! Do you know if they have published an API for the rocket toolset? Are we gonna rely on the command line interface? - Jie On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks!
Re: Rocket
Hi Jie, I don't think they've published any API yet, the actual integration story is TBD but given the early stage we can help shape the API as well. Tim On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Jie Yu yujie@gmail.com wrote: Sounds great Tim! Do you know if they have published an API for the rocket toolset? Are we gonna rely on the command line interface? - Jie On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks!
Re: Rocket
Very promising idea. Rocket is absolutely looking at Docker's flaw and improve the production environment. On 1 Dec 2014, at 20:30, Tom Arnfeld t...@duedil.com wrote: +1 Sounds exciting! -- Tom Arnfeld Developer // DueDil On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jie Yu yujie@gmail.com wrote: Sounds great Tim! Do you know if they have published an API for the rocket toolset? Are we gonna rely on the command line interface? - Jie On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks!
Re: Rocket
Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it. Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide value through a C++ implementation. I've created a JIRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on this. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks! -- Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
Re: Rocket
Looks interesting definitely +1 -parolkar On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Tobias Knaup t...@knaup.me wrote: An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket). Here is the spec: https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use something else or come with its own. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon dha...@twopensource.com wrote: Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it. Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide value through a C++ implementation. I've created a JIRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on this. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks! -- Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
Re: Rocket
Thanks Tobias for clarifying this, we can consider implement and help shape the spec that is easy for Mesos to integrate. Tim On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Tobias Knaup t...@knaup.me wrote: An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket). Here is the spec: https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use something else or come with its own. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon dha...@twopensource.com wrote: Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it. Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide value through a C++ implementation. I've created a JIRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on this. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen t...@mesosphere.io wrote: Hi all, Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket ( https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution. All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well. I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime. Like to learn what you all think, Thanks! -- Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
