Re: Sending binaries over relations

2016-01-21 Thread Mark Shuttleworth
Two thoughts. First, I think it's interesting that you see resources as such a dynamic thing. I believe the current model accommodates this (we considered user-provided resources, and what you are describing are essentially charm-generated resources, but they would behave the same way). Second,

Re: Sending binaries over relations

2016-01-21 Thread Merlijn Sebrechts
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear about this. I wasn't consistent enough with my usage of Charm VS Service. The library is not for the connection between two charms. The library is for the connection between two services (the two services that the two Charms deploy). I've seen it common for Java services

Re: Sending binaries over relations

2016-01-21 Thread Nate Finch
I actually don't see why you would ever need to distribute a specific library for connecting to an API on another charm. The charm using the dynamically determined client would still require a static (i.e. backward compatible) API on the client library (otherwise the client charm would have no

Re: Sending binaries over relations

2016-01-21 Thread Cory Johns
This use-case lines up almost exactly with how we deal with the Hadoop client libraries in the Hadoop core charms. We handle this using the apache-hadoop-plugin subordinate charm. The subordinate charm provides the Hadoop libraries to the client, with the versions supported being locked in the

Re: Sending binaries over relations

2016-01-20 Thread John Meinel
It does feel like a good fit for resources, with the one caveat that he wants to maintain a lock-step version of the resource across services. There is slightly more work with the current designs for resources, in that each charm will think about its version of the resource independently. But we

Re: Sending binaries over relations

2016-01-20 Thread Merlijn Sebrechts
I like the idea of rsync. Is there a way to restrict access to a single file on the rsync server? 2016-01-20 16:16 GMT+01:00 Marco Ceppi : > I don't think sending the binary via relation is a good idea. Either > spinning up a web service or using rsync would be a better bet > >

Re: Sending binaries over relations

2016-01-20 Thread Merlijn Sebrechts
@José: I worry that this will become a big strain to the state server. I don't know much about the internal architecture to be certain of this, though.. @Matthew: This would side-step jujuresources. It might be feasible if jujuresources could provide a way for the Charm to Share that resource,

Re: Sending binaries over relations

2016-01-20 Thread Matthew Williams
Would it not be better for the charm to have a path the client can `wget` the libraries from - this path can be sent via the relation as a string Matty On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 2:30 PM, José Antonio Rey wrote: > Hey, > > One of the options would be to cat the file as a string

Re: Sending binaries over relations

2016-01-20 Thread Merlijn Sebrechts
It seems rssh might be able to do this! 2016-01-20 16:25 GMT+01:00 Merlijn Sebrechts : > I like the idea of rsync. Is there a way to restrict access to a single > file on the rsync server? > > 2016-01-20 16:16 GMT+01:00 Marco Ceppi : > >> I don't

Re: Sending binaries over relations

2016-01-20 Thread José Antonio Rey
Hey, One of the options would be to cat the file as a string and pass that string over the connection, finally echoing that string to foo.binary. What do others think? -- José Antonio Rey On Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 08:25 Merlijn Sebrechts wrote: > Hi > > > I have a

Sending binaries over relations

2016-01-20 Thread Merlijn Sebrechts
Hi I have a question I'd like to discuss, if you guys aren't to busy prepping for Ubucon.. :) I've found a number of Java projects where, in order to communicate for example with Kafka, they require the Kafka Java libraries for that specific version. For the moment, I solve this by downloading