Hi Martin,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Martin Lucina <mar...@lucina.net> wrote:
> Hi Nikhil,
>
> On Tuesday, 12.06.2018 at 13:47, nikhil ap wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what you mean. What selection of modules gets complied
> > > in/enabled for a tender would be up to the operator of that tender to
> > > determine as a policy decision. The tender would then, based on
> > > interpreting the binary's manifest, determine whether or not it
> > > "can/will/is allowed to" launch the (separately supplied) unikernel.
> > >
> >
> > Ok. I had thought we would compile-in all the modules for the tender.
> > You are suggesting that if the operator only requires the net module,
> > he will configure the tender by running tender-configure net
> > which will only compile-in the net module and will feed the unikernel
> image
> > with the manifest to this tender.
>
> Well, what I think we should do is provide a default configuration, which
> operators can trim down / extend as they see fit. With a move away from
> compile-time coupling this would be done by a toplevel "configure.sh" which
> would replace the per-tender script ("ukvm-configure") that we have now.
>
> Again, the specifics of how this will actually work are yet to be
> determined.
>
> > Also, I was thinking once you are done with the re-naming, we could have
> a
> > call to discuss and conclude on a design? What can be done for an initial
> > phase?
> > What tooling can we provide taking into the account the unikernels we
> > support, etc.
> > Others could join as well and at the end we should be able to document
> the
> > design. Thoughts?
>
> Speaking from experience a video call is the worst possible format to
> discuss designs. We should either do this asynchronously here / on GitHub
> or organise a workshop in person.
>
I guess having an initial write-up might be a good idea. We can have a wiki
in github or a doc in google docs where we can review/comment/edit and
build on
top of the design.
>
> > Another thing is since this is mostly a configuration based change, I can
> > still
> > come up with a proposal for multi-nic assuming we've loaded the manifest
> > and
> > determined how many NICs we need. I can do a write-up on what are the
> > changes
> > that are required for the tender-binding-application. Is this fine?
>
> All in good time. Lets get the release and renaming out of the way first,
> then we can discuss what happens next.
>
> -mato
>
--
Regards,
Nikhil
