Re: [Openstack] [Nova-orchestration] Preliminary analysis of SpiffWorkflow
I agree. I think the conceptual work done (and documented here: http://www.workflowpatterns.com) helps make this a strong framework. As I've been working with the author to understand the implementation, my confidence in the library grows. I think the biggest missing in it is the documentation of the implementation. That's relatively easy to fix (as opposed to a flawed implementation). With regards to versioning; 1. I would think it depends greatly on how long running a long-running workflow would be. 2. SpiffWorkflow loads the spec and the instance in memory and operates on them there. If you change the persisted spec, next time you start an instance you would be running what effectively is a new workflow in parallel. There's no underlying database (or persisted) schema for a running workflow that I see right now. So this might be a none issue (from the perspective of the workflow library - but not the implementation using it). 3. I also think that implementing versioning in the workflow engine in a manner that would fit everyone's needs who is integrating in the engine would be a complex undertaking. It seems simpler to me leave that to the integration to manage spinning up, updating, and completing running instances. Why do I feel like I tried to summarize a huge topic in 3 measly points! Probably something to revisit when we get closer to an implementation. Z On 4/6/12 3:26 PM, "Sandy Walsh" wrote: >That's great Ziad ... nice work! > >Having written one of these libraries before I know the challenges are >mostly conceptual, but not terribly technical (fortunately). > >Generally the separation between WorkflowSpec and Workflow or TaskSpec >and Task is the same as Class and Instance. You define the spec (class) >and apply it to many running workflows (instances). > >Side note: this can get you into the problem of versioning too. You >define a workflow, spawn 10 instances of it and then change the spec ... >do the existing instances change or continue running the old spec? Fun >stuff. > >Look forward to seeing that larger project! > >-S > > >From: Ziad Sawalha >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 4:53 PM >To: Sriram Subramanian; Dugger, Donald D; Sandy Walsh >Cc: nova-orchestrat...@lists.launchpad.net; openstack@lists.launchpad.net >Subject: Re: [Openstack] [Nova-orchestration] Preliminary analysis of >SpiffWorkflow > >Here's a link to my analysis so far: >http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration/WorkflowEngines/SpiffWorkflow > >It looks good, but I won't pass a final verdict until I have completed a >working project in it. I have one in progress and will let ya know when >it's done. > >Z > >On 4/3/12 4:56 PM, "Ziad Sawalha" wrote: > >>Just confirming what Sandy said; I am playing around with SpiffWorkflow. >>I'll post my findings when I'm done on the wiki under the Nova >>Orchestration page. >> >>So far I've found some of the documentation lacking and concepts >>confusing, which has resulted in a steep learning curve and made it >>difficult to integrate into something like RabbitMQ (for long-running >>tasks). But the thinking behind it (http://www.workflowpatterns.com/) >>seems sound and I will continue to investigate it. >> >>Z >> >>On 3/29/12 5:56 PM, "Sriram Subramanian" wrote: >> >>>Guys, >>> >>>Sorry for missing the meeting today. Thanks for the detailed summary/ >>>logs. I am cool with the action item : #action sriram to update the >>>Orchestration session proposal. This is my understanding the logs of >>>things to be updated in the blueprint: >>> >>>1) orchestration service provides state management with client side APIs >>>2) add API design and state storage as topics for the orchestration >>>session at the Summit >>>3) add implementation plan as session topic >>> >>>Please correct me if I missed anything. >>> >>>Just to bring everyone to same page, here are the new links >>> >>>Folsom BluePrint: >>>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration >>>Folsom Session proposal: >>>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration >>>Wiki: http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration (I will clean this up >>>tonight) >>> >>>Maoy: Sandy's pointers are in this email thread (which n0ano meant to >>>fwd >>>you) >>>Mikeyp: Moving the conversation to the main mailing list per your >>>suggestion >>> >>>Thanks, >>>_Sriram >>> >>>-Original Message- >>
Re: [Openstack] [Nova-orchestration] Preliminary analysis of SpiffWorkflow
Ahem... It's Spiff, not Spliff, Sandy :-) On 4/6/12 3:47 PM, "Sandy Walsh" wrote: >From what I've seen Spliff doesn't specify ... the containing application >has to deal with persistence. > >-S > > >From: Yun Mao [yun...@gmail.com] >Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 5:38 PM >To: Ziad Sawalha >Cc: Sriram Subramanian; Dugger, Donald D; Sandy Walsh; >nova-orchestrat...@lists.launchpad.net; openstack@lists.launchpad.net >Subject: Re: [Nova-orchestration] [Openstack] Preliminary analysis of >SpiffWorkflow > >Hi Ziad, > >thanks for the great work. Do we know how the states are persisted in >Spiff? Thanks, > >Yun > >On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ziad Sawalha >wrote: >> Here's a link to my analysis so far: >> >>http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration/WorkflowEngines/SpiffWorkflow >> >> It looks good, but I won't pass a final verdict until I have completed a >> working project in it. I have one in progress and will let ya know when >> it's done. >> >> Z >> >> On 4/3/12 4:56 PM, "Ziad Sawalha" wrote: >> >>>Just confirming what Sandy said; I am playing around with SpiffWorkflow. >>>I'll post my findings when I'm done on the wiki under the Nova >>>Orchestration page. >>> >>>So far I've found some of the documentation lacking and concepts >>>confusing, which has resulted in a steep learning curve and made it >>>difficult to integrate into something like RabbitMQ (for long-running >>>tasks). But the thinking behind it (http://www.workflowpatterns.com/) >>>seems sound and I will continue to investigate it. >>> >>>Z >>> >>>On 3/29/12 5:56 PM, "Sriram Subramanian" wrote: >>> Guys, Sorry for missing the meeting today. Thanks for the detailed summary/ logs. I am cool with the action item : #action sriram to update the Orchestration session proposal. This is my understanding the logs of things to be updated in the blueprint: 1) orchestration service provides state management with client side APIs 2) add API design and state storage as topics for the orchestration session at the Summit 3) add implementation plan as session topic Please correct me if I missed anything. Just to bring everyone to same page, here are the new links Folsom BluePrint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration Folsom Session proposal: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration Wiki: http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration (I will clean this up tonight) Maoy: Sandy's pointers are in this email thread (which n0ano meant to fwd you) Mikeyp: Moving the conversation to the main mailing list per your suggestion Thanks, _Sriram -Original Message- From: Dugger, Donald D [mailto:donald.d.dug...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:52 PM To: Sriram Subramanian; Sandy Walsh Cc: Michael Pittaro (mik...@lahondaresearch.org) Subject: RE: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: Documentation on Caching) NP, I'll be on the IRC for whoever wants to talk. Maybe we can try and do the sync you want via email, that's always been my favorite way to communicate (it allows you to focus thoughts and deals with timezones nicely). -- Don Dugger "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sriram Subramanian [mailto:sri...@computenext.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:45 PM To: Sriram Subramanian; Sandy Walsh Cc: Dugger, Donald D; Michael Pittaro (mik...@lahondaresearch.org) Subject: RE: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: Documentation on Caching) I will most likely be running little late from my 12 - 1 meeting which doesn't seem to be ending anytime now :( I haven't gotten a chance to submit a branch yet. Hopefully by this week end (at least a bare bones) If you are available for offline sync later this week - I would appreciate that. Apologies for possibly missing the sync. Thanks, -Sriram -Original Message- From: nova-orchestration-bounces+sriram=computenext@lists.launchpad.net [mailto:nova-orchestration-bounces+sriram=computenext.com@lists.launchp ad . net] On Behalf Of Sriram Subramanian Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:44 PM To: Sandy Walsh Cc: nova-orchestrat...@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: Documentation on Caching) Thanks for the pointers Sandy. I will try to spend some cycles on the branch per your suggestion; we will also discuss more tomorrow. Yes, BP is not far off from last summit, and would like to flush out more for this summit. Thanks, -Sriram -Original Message- From: Sandy
Re: [Openstack] [Nova-orchestration] Preliminary analysis of SpiffWorkflow
Read my latest notes and let me know if that helps: http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration/WorkflowEngines/SpiffWorkflow Two things to consider: - you can consist the workflow definition (a.k.a. The Spec) - there are no states in the definition - you can persist the 'running' workflow (states are stored, and so is the definition; a.k.a. the Spec) - each task stores its own state. - I drew a diagram here, but have not yet validated it with the author: https://github.com/ziadsawalha/SpiffWorkflow/raw/c777401a4c2cee0171ac6e7354 2b052679f1e5e1/doc/figures/state-diagram.png Z On 4/6/12 3:38 PM, "Yun Mao" wrote: >Hi Ziad, > >thanks for the great work. Do we know how the states are persisted in >Spiff? Thanks, > >Yun > >On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ziad Sawalha >wrote: >> Here's a link to my analysis so far: >> >>http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration/WorkflowEngines/SpiffWorkflow >> >> It looks good, but I won't pass a final verdict until I have completed a >> working project in it. I have one in progress and will let ya know when >> it's done. >> >> Z >> >> On 4/3/12 4:56 PM, "Ziad Sawalha" wrote: >> >>>Just confirming what Sandy said; I am playing around with SpiffWorkflow. >>>I'll post my findings when I'm done on the wiki under the Nova >>>Orchestration page. >>> >>>So far I've found some of the documentation lacking and concepts >>>confusing, which has resulted in a steep learning curve and made it >>>difficult to integrate into something like RabbitMQ (for long-running >>>tasks). But the thinking behind it (http://www.workflowpatterns.com/) >>>seems sound and I will continue to investigate it. >>> >>>Z >>> >>>On 3/29/12 5:56 PM, "Sriram Subramanian" wrote: >>> Guys, Sorry for missing the meeting today. Thanks for the detailed summary/ logs. I am cool with the action item : #action sriram to update the Orchestration session proposal. This is my understanding the logs of things to be updated in the blueprint: 1) orchestration service provides state management with client side APIs 2) add API design and state storage as topics for the orchestration session at the Summit 3) add implementation plan as session topic Please correct me if I missed anything. Just to bring everyone to same page, here are the new links Folsom BluePrint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration Folsom Session proposal: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration Wiki: http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration (I will clean this up tonight) Maoy: Sandy's pointers are in this email thread (which n0ano meant to fwd you) Mikeyp: Moving the conversation to the main mailing list per your suggestion Thanks, _Sriram -Original Message- From: Dugger, Donald D [mailto:donald.d.dug...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:52 PM To: Sriram Subramanian; Sandy Walsh Cc: Michael Pittaro (mik...@lahondaresearch.org) Subject: RE: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: Documentation on Caching) NP, I'll be on the IRC for whoever wants to talk. Maybe we can try and do the sync you want via email, that's always been my favorite way to communicate (it allows you to focus thoughts and deals with timezones nicely). -- Don Dugger "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 -Original Message- From: Sriram Subramanian [mailto:sri...@computenext.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:45 PM To: Sriram Subramanian; Sandy Walsh Cc: Dugger, Donald D; Michael Pittaro (mik...@lahondaresearch.org) Subject: RE: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: Documentation on Caching) I will most likely be running little late from my 12 - 1 meeting which doesn't seem to be ending anytime now :( I haven't gotten a chance to submit a branch yet. Hopefully by this week end (at least a bare bones) If you are available for offline sync later this week - I would appreciate that. Apologies for possibly missing the sync. Thanks, -Sriram -Original Message- From: nova-orchestration-bounces+sriram=computenext@lists.launchpad.net [mailto:nova-orchestration-bounces+sriram=computenext.com@lists.launchp ad . net] On Behalf Of Sriram Subramanian Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:44 PM To: Sandy Walsh Cc: nova-orchestrat...@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: Documentation on Caching) Thanks for the pointers Sandy. I will try to spend some cycles on the branch per your suggestion; we will also discuss more tomorrow. Yes, BP is not far off from last summit, and would like to flush out more for this summit. >>
Re: [Openstack] [Nova-orchestration] Preliminary analysis of SpiffWorkflow
>From what I've seen Spliff doesn't specify ... the containing application has >to deal with persistence. -S From: Yun Mao [yun...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 5:38 PM To: Ziad Sawalha Cc: Sriram Subramanian; Dugger, Donald D; Sandy Walsh; nova-orchestrat...@lists.launchpad.net; openstack@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Nova-orchestration] [Openstack] Preliminary analysis of SpiffWorkflow Hi Ziad, thanks for the great work. Do we know how the states are persisted in Spiff? Thanks, Yun On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ziad Sawalha wrote: > Here's a link to my analysis so far: > http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration/WorkflowEngines/SpiffWorkflow > > It looks good, but I won't pass a final verdict until I have completed a > working project in it. I have one in progress and will let ya know when > it's done. > > Z > > On 4/3/12 4:56 PM, "Ziad Sawalha" wrote: > >>Just confirming what Sandy said; I am playing around with SpiffWorkflow. >>I'll post my findings when I'm done on the wiki under the Nova >>Orchestration page. >> >>So far I've found some of the documentation lacking and concepts >>confusing, which has resulted in a steep learning curve and made it >>difficult to integrate into something like RabbitMQ (for long-running >>tasks). But the thinking behind it (http://www.workflowpatterns.com/) >>seems sound and I will continue to investigate it. >> >>Z >> >>On 3/29/12 5:56 PM, "Sriram Subramanian" wrote: >> >>>Guys, >>> >>>Sorry for missing the meeting today. Thanks for the detailed summary/ >>>logs. I am cool with the action item : #action sriram to update the >>>Orchestration session proposal. This is my understanding the logs of >>>things to be updated in the blueprint: >>> >>>1) orchestration service provides state management with client side APIs >>>2) add API design and state storage as topics for the orchestration >>>session at the Summit >>>3) add implementation plan as session topic >>> >>>Please correct me if I missed anything. >>> >>>Just to bring everyone to same page, here are the new links >>> >>>Folsom BluePrint: >>>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration >>>Folsom Session proposal: >>>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration >>>Wiki: http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration (I will clean this up >>>tonight) >>> >>>Maoy: Sandy's pointers are in this email thread (which n0ano meant to fwd >>>you) >>>Mikeyp: Moving the conversation to the main mailing list per your >>>suggestion >>> >>>Thanks, >>>_Sriram >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Dugger, Donald D [mailto:donald.d.dug...@intel.com] >>>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:52 PM >>>To: Sriram Subramanian; Sandy Walsh >>>Cc: Michael Pittaro (mik...@lahondaresearch.org) >>>Subject: RE: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: >>>Documentation on Caching) >>> >>>NP, I'll be on the IRC for whoever wants to talk. Maybe we can try and >>>do the sync you want via email, that's always been my favorite way to >>>communicate (it allows you to focus thoughts and deals with timezones >>>nicely). >>> >>>-- >>>Don Dugger >>>"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale >>>Ph: 303/443-3786 >>> >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Sriram Subramanian [mailto:sri...@computenext.com] >>>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:45 PM >>>To: Sriram Subramanian; Sandy Walsh >>>Cc: Dugger, Donald D; Michael Pittaro (mik...@lahondaresearch.org) >>>Subject: RE: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: >>>Documentation on Caching) >>> >>>I will most likely be running little late from my 12 - 1 meeting which >>>doesn't seem to be ending anytime now :( >>> >>>I haven't gotten a chance to submit a branch yet. Hopefully by this week >>>end (at least a bare bones) >>> >>>If you are available for offline sync later this week - I would >>>appreciate that. Apologies for possibly missing the sync. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>-Sriram >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: >>>nova-orchestration-bounces+sriram=computenext@lists.launchpad.net >>>[mailto:nova-orchestration-bounces+sriram=computenext.com@lists.launchpad >>>. >>>net] On Behalf Of Sriram Subramanian >>>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:44 PM >>>To: Sandy Walsh >>>Cc: nova-orchestrat...@lists.launchpad.net >>>Subject: Re: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: >>>Documentation on Caching) >>> >>>Thanks for the pointers Sandy. I will try to spend some cycles on the >>>branch per your suggestion; we will also discuss more tomorrow. >>> >>>Yes, BP is not far off from last summit, and would like to flush out more >>>for this summit. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>-Sriram >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Sandy Walsh [mailto:sandy.wa...@rackspace.com] >>>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:31 AM >>>To: Sriram Subramanian >>>Cc: Michael Pittaro; Dugger, Donald D (donald.d.dug...@intel.com); >>>nova-orchestrat...@lists.launchpad.net >>>Subject: Thoughts o
Re: [Openstack] [Nova-orchestration] Preliminary analysis of SpiffWorkflow
Hi Ziad, thanks for the great work. Do we know how the states are persisted in Spiff? Thanks, Yun On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Ziad Sawalha wrote: > Here's a link to my analysis so far: > http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration/WorkflowEngines/SpiffWorkflow > > It looks good, but I won't pass a final verdict until I have completed a > working project in it. I have one in progress and will let ya know when > it's done. > > Z > > On 4/3/12 4:56 PM, "Ziad Sawalha" wrote: > >>Just confirming what Sandy said; I am playing around with SpiffWorkflow. >>I'll post my findings when I'm done on the wiki under the Nova >>Orchestration page. >> >>So far I've found some of the documentation lacking and concepts >>confusing, which has resulted in a steep learning curve and made it >>difficult to integrate into something like RabbitMQ (for long-running >>tasks). But the thinking behind it (http://www.workflowpatterns.com/) >>seems sound and I will continue to investigate it. >> >>Z >> >>On 3/29/12 5:56 PM, "Sriram Subramanian" wrote: >> >>>Guys, >>> >>>Sorry for missing the meeting today. Thanks for the detailed summary/ >>>logs. I am cool with the action item : #action sriram to update the >>>Orchestration session proposal. This is my understanding the logs of >>>things to be updated in the blueprint: >>> >>>1) orchestration service provides state management with client side APIs >>>2) add API design and state storage as topics for the orchestration >>>session at the Summit >>>3) add implementation plan as session topic >>> >>>Please correct me if I missed anything. >>> >>>Just to bring everyone to same page, here are the new links >>> >>>Folsom BluePrint: >>>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration >>>Folsom Session proposal: >>>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration >>>Wiki: http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration (I will clean this up >>>tonight) >>> >>>Maoy: Sandy's pointers are in this email thread (which n0ano meant to fwd >>>you) >>>Mikeyp: Moving the conversation to the main mailing list per your >>>suggestion >>> >>>Thanks, >>>_Sriram >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Dugger, Donald D [mailto:donald.d.dug...@intel.com] >>>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:52 PM >>>To: Sriram Subramanian; Sandy Walsh >>>Cc: Michael Pittaro (mik...@lahondaresearch.org) >>>Subject: RE: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: >>>Documentation on Caching) >>> >>>NP, I'll be on the IRC for whoever wants to talk. Maybe we can try and >>>do the sync you want via email, that's always been my favorite way to >>>communicate (it allows you to focus thoughts and deals with timezones >>>nicely). >>> >>>-- >>>Don Dugger >>>"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale >>>Ph: 303/443-3786 >>> >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Sriram Subramanian [mailto:sri...@computenext.com] >>>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:45 PM >>>To: Sriram Subramanian; Sandy Walsh >>>Cc: Dugger, Donald D; Michael Pittaro (mik...@lahondaresearch.org) >>>Subject: RE: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: >>>Documentation on Caching) >>> >>>I will most likely be running little late from my 12 - 1 meeting which >>>doesn't seem to be ending anytime now :( >>> >>>I haven't gotten a chance to submit a branch yet. Hopefully by this week >>>end (at least a bare bones) >>> >>>If you are available for offline sync later this week - I would >>>appreciate that. Apologies for possibly missing the sync. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>-Sriram >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: >>>nova-orchestration-bounces+sriram=computenext@lists.launchpad.net >>>[mailto:nova-orchestration-bounces+sriram=computenext.com@lists.launchpad >>>. >>>net] On Behalf Of Sriram Subramanian >>>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:44 PM >>>To: Sandy Walsh >>>Cc: nova-orchestrat...@lists.launchpad.net >>>Subject: Re: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: >>>Documentation on Caching) >>> >>>Thanks for the pointers Sandy. I will try to spend some cycles on the >>>branch per your suggestion; we will also discuss more tomorrow. >>> >>>Yes, BP is not far off from last summit, and would like to flush out more >>>for this summit. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>-Sriram >>> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Sandy Walsh [mailto:sandy.wa...@rackspace.com] >>>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:31 AM >>>To: Sriram Subramanian >>>Cc: Michael Pittaro; Dugger, Donald D (donald.d.dug...@intel.com); >>>nova-orchestrat...@lists.launchpad.net >>>Subject: Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: Documentation on Caching) >>> >>>Ah, gotcha. >>> >>>I don't think the caching stuff will really affect the Orchestration >>>layer all that much. Certainly the Cells stuff that comstud is working on >>>should be considered. >>> >>>The BP isn't really too far off from what we discussed last summit. >>>Although I would give more consideration to the stuff Redhat is thinking >>>about and some of the efforts by HP and IBM with re
Re: [Openstack] [Nova-orchestration] Preliminary analysis of SpiffWorkflow
That's great Ziad ... nice work! Having written one of these libraries before I know the challenges are mostly conceptual, but not terribly technical (fortunately). Generally the separation between WorkflowSpec and Workflow or TaskSpec and Task is the same as Class and Instance. You define the spec (class) and apply it to many running workflows (instances). Side note: this can get you into the problem of versioning too. You define a workflow, spawn 10 instances of it and then change the spec ... do the existing instances change or continue running the old spec? Fun stuff. Look forward to seeing that larger project! -S From: Ziad Sawalha Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 4:53 PM To: Sriram Subramanian; Dugger, Donald D; Sandy Walsh Cc: nova-orchestrat...@lists.launchpad.net; openstack@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Openstack] [Nova-orchestration] Preliminary analysis of SpiffWorkflow Here's a link to my analysis so far: http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration/WorkflowEngines/SpiffWorkflow It looks good, but I won't pass a final verdict until I have completed a working project in it. I have one in progress and will let ya know when it's done. Z On 4/3/12 4:56 PM, "Ziad Sawalha" wrote: >Just confirming what Sandy said; I am playing around with SpiffWorkflow. >I'll post my findings when I'm done on the wiki under the Nova >Orchestration page. > >So far I've found some of the documentation lacking and concepts >confusing, which has resulted in a steep learning curve and made it >difficult to integrate into something like RabbitMQ (for long-running >tasks). But the thinking behind it (http://www.workflowpatterns.com/) >seems sound and I will continue to investigate it. > >Z > >On 3/29/12 5:56 PM, "Sriram Subramanian" wrote: > >>Guys, >> >>Sorry for missing the meeting today. Thanks for the detailed summary/ >>logs. I am cool with the action item : #action sriram to update the >>Orchestration session proposal. This is my understanding the logs of >>things to be updated in the blueprint: >> >>1) orchestration service provides state management with client side APIs >>2) add API design and state storage as topics for the orchestration >>session at the Summit >>3) add implementation plan as session topic >> >>Please correct me if I missed anything. >> >>Just to bring everyone to same page, here are the new links >> >>Folsom BluePrint: >>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration >>Folsom Session proposal: >>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration >>Wiki: http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration (I will clean this up >>tonight) >> >>Maoy: Sandy's pointers are in this email thread (which n0ano meant to fwd >>you) >>Mikeyp: Moving the conversation to the main mailing list per your >>suggestion >> >>Thanks, >>_Sriram >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Dugger, Donald D [mailto:donald.d.dug...@intel.com] >>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:52 PM >>To: Sriram Subramanian; Sandy Walsh >>Cc: Michael Pittaro (mik...@lahondaresearch.org) >>Subject: RE: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: >>Documentation on Caching) >> >>NP, I'll be on the IRC for whoever wants to talk. Maybe we can try and >>do the sync you want via email, that's always been my favorite way to >>communicate (it allows you to focus thoughts and deals with timezones >>nicely). >> >>-- >>Don Dugger >>"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale >>Ph: 303/443-3786 >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Sriram Subramanian [mailto:sri...@computenext.com] >>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:45 PM >>To: Sriram Subramanian; Sandy Walsh >>Cc: Dugger, Donald D; Michael Pittaro (mik...@lahondaresearch.org) >>Subject: RE: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: >>Documentation on Caching) >> >>I will most likely be running little late from my 12 - 1 meeting which >>doesn't seem to be ending anytime now :( >> >>I haven't gotten a chance to submit a branch yet. Hopefully by this week >>end (at least a bare bones) >> >>If you are available for offline sync later this week - I would >>appreciate that. Apologies for possibly missing the sync. >> >>Thanks, >>-Sriram >> >>-Original Message- >>From: >>nova-orchestration-bounces+sriram=computenext@lists.launchpad.net >>[mailto:nova-orchestration-bounces+sriram=computenext.com@lists.launchpad &
Re: [Openstack] [Nova-orchestration] Preliminary analysis of SpiffWorkflow
Here's a link to my analysis so far: http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration/WorkflowEngines/SpiffWorkflow It looks good, but I won't pass a final verdict until I have completed a working project in it. I have one in progress and will let ya know when it's done. Z On 4/3/12 4:56 PM, "Ziad Sawalha" wrote: >Just confirming what Sandy said; I am playing around with SpiffWorkflow. >I'll post my findings when I'm done on the wiki under the Nova >Orchestration page. > >So far I've found some of the documentation lacking and concepts >confusing, which has resulted in a steep learning curve and made it >difficult to integrate into something like RabbitMQ (for long-running >tasks). But the thinking behind it (http://www.workflowpatterns.com/) >seems sound and I will continue to investigate it. > >Z > >On 3/29/12 5:56 PM, "Sriram Subramanian" wrote: > >>Guys, >> >>Sorry for missing the meeting today. Thanks for the detailed summary/ >>logs. I am cool with the action item : #action sriram to update the >>Orchestration session proposal. This is my understanding the logs of >>things to be updated in the blueprint: >> >>1) orchestration service provides state management with client side APIs >>2) add API design and state storage as topics for the orchestration >>session at the Summit >>3) add implementation plan as session topic >> >>Please correct me if I missed anything. >> >>Just to bring everyone to same page, here are the new links >> >>Folsom BluePrint: >>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration >>Folsom Session proposal: >>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/nova-orchestration >>Wiki: http://wiki.openstack.org/NovaOrchestration (I will clean this up >>tonight) >> >>Maoy: Sandy's pointers are in this email thread (which n0ano meant to fwd >>you) >>Mikeyp: Moving the conversation to the main mailing list per your >>suggestion >> >>Thanks, >>_Sriram >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Dugger, Donald D [mailto:donald.d.dug...@intel.com] >>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:52 PM >>To: Sriram Subramanian; Sandy Walsh >>Cc: Michael Pittaro (mik...@lahondaresearch.org) >>Subject: RE: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: >>Documentation on Caching) >> >>NP, I'll be on the IRC for whoever wants to talk. Maybe we can try and >>do the sync you want via email, that's always been my favorite way to >>communicate (it allows you to focus thoughts and deals with timezones >>nicely). >> >>-- >>Don Dugger >>"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale >>Ph: 303/443-3786 >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Sriram Subramanian [mailto:sri...@computenext.com] >>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:45 PM >>To: Sriram Subramanian; Sandy Walsh >>Cc: Dugger, Donald D; Michael Pittaro (mik...@lahondaresearch.org) >>Subject: RE: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: >>Documentation on Caching) >> >>I will most likely be running little late from my 12 - 1 meeting which >>doesn't seem to be ending anytime now :( >> >>I haven't gotten a chance to submit a branch yet. Hopefully by this week >>end (at least a bare bones) >> >>If you are available for offline sync later this week - I would >>appreciate that. Apologies for possibly missing the sync. >> >>Thanks, >>-Sriram >> >>-Original Message- >>From: >>nova-orchestration-bounces+sriram=computenext@lists.launchpad.net >>[mailto:nova-orchestration-bounces+sriram=computenext.com@lists.launchpad >>. >>net] On Behalf Of Sriram Subramanian >>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:44 PM >>To: Sandy Walsh >>Cc: nova-orchestrat...@lists.launchpad.net >>Subject: Re: [Nova-orchestration] Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: >>Documentation on Caching) >> >>Thanks for the pointers Sandy. I will try to spend some cycles on the >>branch per your suggestion; we will also discuss more tomorrow. >> >>Yes, BP is not far off from last summit, and would like to flush out more >>for this summit. >> >>Thanks, >>-Sriram >> >>-Original Message- >>From: Sandy Walsh [mailto:sandy.wa...@rackspace.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:31 AM >>To: Sriram Subramanian >>Cc: Michael Pittaro; Dugger, Donald D (donald.d.dug...@intel.com); >>nova-orchestrat...@lists.launchpad.net >>Subject: Thoughts on Orchestration (was Re: Documentation on Caching) >> >>Ah, gotcha. >> >>I don't think the caching stuff will really affect the Orchestration >>layer all that much. Certainly the Cells stuff that comstud is working on >>should be considered. >> >>The BP isn't really too far off from what we discussed last summit. >>Although I would give more consideration to the stuff Redhat is thinking >>about and some of the efforts by HP and IBM with respect to scheduling >>(mostly HPC stuff). Unifying and/or understanding those efforts would be >>important. >> >>That said, as with all things OpenStack, code speaks louder than words. >>The best way to solicit input on an idea is to submit a branch. That's >>the approach I'd take now if I
