Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from the last team meeting
Joshua, Good point. It is optimal start off a project with a greater vision and work on getting there. However, it will take time to build consensus within the team. You are welcome to participant to build the project vision. Right now, it looks the team doesn't have consensus for the long-term scope yet, but we do have consensus on the short-term objectives. In such case, I would suggest the team to focus on the basic at current stage. At the meanwhile, we are holding weekly meeting to let everyone share their long-term vision and drive censuses on them. Best regards, Hongbin > -Original Message- > From: Joshua Harlow [mailto:harlo...@fastmail.com] > Sent: May-27-16 4:46 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from the > last team meeting > > I get this idea, I just want to bring up the option that if u only > start off with a basic vision, then u basically get that as a result, > vs IMHO where u start off with a bigger/greater vision and work on > getting there. > > I'd personally rather work on a project that has a advanced vision vs > one that has 'just do the basics' but thats just my 2 cents... > > Hongbin Lu wrote: > > I agree with you and Qiming. The Higgins project should start with > > basic functionalities and revisit advanced features later. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Hongbin > > > > *From:*Yanyan Hu [mailto:huyanya...@gmail.com] > > *Sent:* May-24-16 11:06 PM > > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from > the > > last team meeting > > > > Hi, Hongbing, thanks a lot for the summary! The following is my > > thoughts on those two questions left: > > > > About container composition, it is a really useful and important > > feature for enduser. But based on my understanding, user can actually > > achieve the same goal by leveraging other high level OpenStack > services, e.g. > > defining a Heat template with Higgins container resources and > > app/service (softwareconfig/softwaredeployment resources) running > > inside containers. In future we can implement related functionality > > inside Higgins to better support this kind of use cases natively. But > > in current stage, I suggest we focus on container primitive and its > > basic operations. > > > > For container host management, I agree we should expose related API > > interfaces to operator(admin). Ideally, Higgins should be able to > > manage all container hosts(baremetal and VM) automatically, but > manual > > intervention could be necessary in many pratical use cases. But I > > suggest to hide these API interfaces from endusers since it's not > > their responsibility to manage those hosts. > > > > Thanks. > > > > 2016-05-25 4:55 GMT+08:00 Hongbin Lu > <mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com>>: > > > > Hi all, > > > > At the last team meeting, we tried to define the scope of the Higgins > > project. In general, we agreed to focus on the following features as > > an initial start: > > > > ·Build a container abstraction and use docker as the first > implementation. > > > > ·Focus on basic container operations (i.e. CRUD), and leave advanced > > operations (i.e. keep container alive, rolling upgrade, etc.) to > users > > or other projects/services. > > > > ·Start with non-nested container use cases (e.g. containers on > > physical hosts), and revisit nested container use cases (e.g. > > containers on VMs) later. > > > > The items below needs further discussion so I started this ML to > discuss it. > > > > 1.Container composition: implement a docker compose like feature > > > > 2.Container host management: abstract container host > > > > For #1, it seems we broadly agreed that this is a useful feature. The > > argument is where this feature belongs to. Some people think this > > feature belongs to other projects, such as Heat, and others think it > > belongs to Higgins so we should implement it. For #2, we were mainly > > debating two things: where the container hosts come from (provisioned > > by Nova or provided by operators); should we expose host management > > APIs to end-users? Thoughts? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Hongbin > > > > > > > __ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscr
Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from the last team meeting
I get this idea, I just want to bring up the option that if u only start off with a basic vision, then u basically get that as a result, vs IMHO where u start off with a bigger/greater vision and work on getting there. I'd personally rather work on a project that has a advanced vision vs one that has 'just do the basics' but thats just my 2 cents... Hongbin Lu wrote: I agree with you and Qiming. The Higgins project should start with basic functionalities and revisit advanced features later. Best regards, Hongbin *From:*Yanyan Hu [mailto:huyanya...@gmail.com] *Sent:* May-24-16 11:06 PM *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from the last team meeting Hi, Hongbing, thanks a lot for the summary! The following is my thoughts on those two questions left: About container composition, it is a really useful and important feature for enduser. But based on my understanding, user can actually achieve the same goal by leveraging other high level OpenStack services, e.g. defining a Heat template with Higgins container resources and app/service (softwareconfig/softwaredeployment resources) running inside containers. In future we can implement related functionality inside Higgins to better support this kind of use cases natively. But in current stage, I suggest we focus on container primitive and its basic operations. For container host management, I agree we should expose related API interfaces to operator(admin). Ideally, Higgins should be able to manage all container hosts(baremetal and VM) automatically, but manual intervention could be necessary in many pratical use cases. But I suggest to hide these API interfaces from endusers since it's not their responsibility to manage those hosts. Thanks. 2016-05-25 4:55 GMT+08:00 Hongbin Lu mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com>>: Hi all, At the last team meeting, we tried to define the scope of the Higgins project. In general, we agreed to focus on the following features as an initial start: ·Build a container abstraction and use docker as the first implementation. ·Focus on basic container operations (i.e. CRUD), and leave advanced operations (i.e. keep container alive, rolling upgrade, etc.) to users or other projects/services. ·Start with non-nested container use cases (e.g. containers on physical hosts), and revisit nested container use cases (e.g. containers on VMs) later. The items below needs further discussion so I started this ML to discuss it. 1.Container composition: implement a docker compose like feature 2.Container host management: abstract container host For #1, it seems we broadly agreed that this is a useful feature. The argument is where this feature belongs to. Some people think this feature belongs to other projects, such as Heat, and others think it belongs to Higgins so we should implement it. For #2, we were mainly debating two things: where the container hosts come from (provisioned by Nova or provided by operators); should we expose host management APIs to end-users? Thoughts? Best regards, Hongbin __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Best regards, Yanyan __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from the last team meeting
Hi all, +1 for starting with basic functionalities and hiding 'host' from end users. Regards, xuhaiwei -Original Message- From: Hongbin Lu [mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 6:00 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from the last team meeting I agree with you and Qiming. The Higgins project should start with basic functionalities and revisit advanced features later. Best regards, Hongbin From: Yanyan Hu [mailto:huyanya...@gmail.com] Sent: May-24-16 11:06 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from the last team meeting Hi, Hongbing, thanks a lot for the summary! The following is my thoughts on those two questions left: About container composition, it is a really useful and important feature for enduser. But based on my understanding, user can actually achieve the same goal by leveraging other high level OpenStack services, e.g. defining a Heat template with Higgins container resources and app/service (softwareconfig/softwaredeployment resources) running inside containers. In future we can implement related functionality inside Higgins to better support this kind of use cases natively. But in current stage, I suggest we focus on container primitive and its basic operations. For container host management, I agree we should expose related API interfaces to operator(admin). Ideally, Higgins should be able to manage all container hosts(baremetal and VM) automatically, but manual intervention could be necessary in many pratical use cases. But I suggest to hide these API interfaces from endusers since it's not their responsibility to manage those hosts. Thanks. 2016-05-25 4:55 GMT+08:00 Hongbin Lu : Hi all, At the last team meeting, we tried to define the scope of the Higgins project. In general, we agreed to focus on the following features as an initial start: · Build a container abstraction and use docker as the first implementation. · Focus on basic container operations (i.e. CRUD), and leave advanced operations (i.e. keep container alive, rolling upgrade, etc.) to users or other projects/services. · Start with non-nested container use cases (e.g. containers on physical hosts), and revisit nested container use cases (e.g. containers on VMs) later. The items below needs further discussion so I started this ML to discuss it. 1. Container composition: implement a docker compose like feature 2. Container host management: abstract container host For #1, it seems we broadly agreed that this is a useful feature. The argument is where this feature belongs to. Some people think this feature belongs to other projects, such as Heat, and others think it belongs to Higgins so we should implement it. For #2, we were mainly debating two things: where the container hosts come from (provisioned by Nova or provided by operators); should we expose host management APIs to end-users? Thoughts? Best regards, Hongbin __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Best regards, Yanyan __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from the last team meeting
I agree with you and Qiming. The Higgins project should start with basic functionalities and revisit advanced features later. Best regards, Hongbin From: Yanyan Hu [mailto:huyanya...@gmail.com] Sent: May-24-16 11:06 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from the last team meeting Hi, Hongbing, thanks a lot for the summary! The following is my thoughts on those two questions left: About container composition, it is a really useful and important feature for enduser. But based on my understanding, user can actually achieve the same goal by leveraging other high level OpenStack services, e.g. defining a Heat template with Higgins container resources and app/service (softwareconfig/softwaredeployment resources) running inside containers. In future we can implement related functionality inside Higgins to better support this kind of use cases natively. But in current stage, I suggest we focus on container primitive and its basic operations. For container host management, I agree we should expose related API interfaces to operator(admin). Ideally, Higgins should be able to manage all container hosts(baremetal and VM) automatically, but manual intervention could be necessary in many pratical use cases. But I suggest to hide these API interfaces from endusers since it's not their responsibility to manage those hosts. Thanks. 2016-05-25 4:55 GMT+08:00 Hongbin Lu mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com>>: Hi all, At the last team meeting, we tried to define the scope of the Higgins project. In general, we agreed to focus on the following features as an initial start: • Build a container abstraction and use docker as the first implementation. • Focus on basic container operations (i.e. CRUD), and leave advanced operations (i.e. keep container alive, rolling upgrade, etc.) to users or other projects/services. • Start with non-nested container use cases (e.g. containers on physical hosts), and revisit nested container use cases (e.g. containers on VMs) later. The items below needs further discussion so I started this ML to discuss it. 1. Container composition: implement a docker compose like feature 2. Container host management: abstract container host For #1, it seems we broadly agreed that this is a useful feature. The argument is where this feature belongs to. Some people think this feature belongs to other projects, such as Heat, and others think it belongs to Higgins so we should implement it. For #2, we were mainly debating two things: where the container hosts come from (provisioned by Nova or provided by operators); should we expose host management APIs to end-users? Thoughts? Best regards, Hongbin __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Best regards, Yanyan __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from the last team meeting
Hello to All. See inline comments. Kind regards, Denys Makogon 2016-05-24 23:55 GMT+03:00 Hongbin Lu : > Hi all, > > > > At the last team meeting, we tried to define the scope of the Higgins > project. In general, we agreed to focus on the following features as an > initial start: > > · Build a container abstraction and use docker as the first > implementation. > > · Focus on basic container operations (i.e. CRUD), and leave > advanced operations (i.e. keep container alive, rolling upgrade, etc.) to > users or other projects/services. > > · Start with non-nested container use cases (e.g. containers on > physical hosts), and revisit nested container use cases (e.g. containers on > VMs) later. > > The items below needs further discussion so I started this ML to discuss > it. > > 1. Container composition: implement a docker compose like feature > In Docker-compose, at this point of time i'm working to extracting core functionality into something similar to libcompose (written on Go) but with Python API. I can tell that it is not that fast, so that work would take some time (couple releases). My suggestion is to implement abstraction layer that will consume your own implementation of compose features and once docker-compose will be ready to be consumed then in Higgins we will switch to it. Another thing, it is worth considering to use TOSCA modeling (see how Tacker is doing it) for container orchestration. > 2. Container host management: abstract container host > > For #1, it seems we broadly agreed that this is a useful feature. The > argument is where this feature belongs to. Some people think this feature > belongs to other projects, such as Heat, and others think it belongs to > Higgins so we should implement it. For #2, we were mainly debating two > things: where the container hosts come from (provisioned by Nova or > provided by operators); should we expose host management APIs to end-users? > Thoughts? > Here's what i think, if we would take a look at Solum that uses swarm cluster API endpoint that defined in its config, so for me, as for operator it is not that useful. As first step, we can live with that, but when you would think of multisite OpenStack containers orchestration that case wouldn't work at all. As proposal, i'd like to see special DB model that represents swarm cluster entity (all necessary creds to connect to it: TLS certs, user/password, endpoint, etc.) and provide advanced placement algorithm that would help to define where should container lay or let users to pick concrete swarm cluster to deploy their container. > > > Best regards, > > Hongbin > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from the last team meeting
Hi, Hongbing, thanks a lot for the summary! The following is my thoughts on those two questions left: About container composition, it is a really useful and important feature for enduser. But based on my understanding, user can actually achieve the same goal by leveraging other high level OpenStack services, e.g. defining a Heat template with Higgins container resources and app/service (softwareconfig/softwaredeployment resources) running inside containers. In future we can implement related functionality inside Higgins to better support this kind of use cases natively. But in current stage, I suggest we focus on container primitive and its basic operations. For container host management, I agree we should expose related API interfaces to operator(admin). Ideally, Higgins should be able to manage all container hosts(baremetal and VM) automatically, but manual intervention could be necessary in many pratical use cases. But I suggest to hide these API interfaces from endusers since it's not their responsibility to manage those hosts. Thanks. 2016-05-25 4:55 GMT+08:00 Hongbin Lu : > Hi all, > > > > At the last team meeting, we tried to define the scope of the Higgins > project. In general, we agreed to focus on the following features as an > initial start: > > · Build a container abstraction and use docker as the first > implementation. > > · Focus on basic container operations (i.e. CRUD), and leave > advanced operations (i.e. keep container alive, rolling upgrade, etc.) to > users or other projects/services. > > · Start with non-nested container use cases (e.g. containers on > physical hosts), and revisit nested container use cases (e.g. containers on > VMs) later. > > The items below needs further discussion so I started this ML to discuss > it. > > 1. Container composition: implement a docker compose like feature > > 2. Container host management: abstract container host > > For #1, it seems we broadly agreed that this is a useful feature. The > argument is where this feature belongs to. Some people think this feature > belongs to other projects, such as Heat, and others think it belongs to > Higgins so we should implement it. For #2, we were mainly debating two > things: where the container hosts come from (provisioned by Nova or > provided by operators); should we expose host management APIs to end-users? > Thoughts? > > > > Best regards, > > Hongbin > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Best regards, Yanyan __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [higgins] Continued discussion from the last team meeting
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:55:28PM +, Hongbin Lu wrote: > Hi all, > > At the last team meeting, we tried to define the scope of the Higgins > project. In general, we agreed to focus on the following features as an > initial start: > > * Build a container abstraction and use docker as the first > implementation. > > * Focus on basic container operations (i.e. CRUD), and leave advanced > operations (i.e. keep container alive, rolling upgrade, etc.) to users or > other projects/services. > > * Start with non-nested container use cases (e.g. containers on > physical hosts), and revisit nested container use cases (e.g. containers on > VMs) later. > The items below needs further discussion so I started this ML to discuss it. > > 1. Container composition: implement a docker compose like feature No doubt this would be very useful a feature for users. However, I still suggest we keep the initial scope to a bare minimum so folks can focus on the first two jobs (container abstraction + CRUD) in this cycle and get things landed soon. We already have a lot details to figure out for the first two items. The next step (maybe early next cycle?) would be about a higher level of APIs that allow users to create some structured, declarative artifacts as inputs. > 2. Container host management: abstract container host I'm not quite aware of the requirements for end users to see or even to manage the container "hosts" (bm or vm). Just like that end users are not supposed to be aware of the compute nodes when they use Nova. For operators, the story might be quite different. They will need such tools or APIs for managing the "hosts" used. Such management jobs can be automated to some extent, but I'm somehow skeptical to full automation. At the end of the day, we need to provide some knobs for operators to do things they want because the automation tool is never ever smarter than the people using it. Just my 2 cents. - Qiming > For #1, it seems we broadly agreed that this is a useful feature. The > argument is where this feature belongs to. Some people think this feature > belongs to other projects, such as Heat, and others think it belongs to > Higgins so we should implement it. For #2, we were mainly debating two > things: where the container hosts come from (provisioned by Nova or provided > by operators); should we expose host management APIs to end-users? Thoughts? > > Best regards, > Hongbin __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev