Open Stack

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com> wrote:

> Excerpts from Thomas Spatzier's message of 2013-11-11 08:57:58 -0800:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have just posted the following wiki page to reflect a refined proposal
> > for HOT software configuration based on discussions at the design summit
> > last week. Angus also put a sample up in an etherpad last week, but we
> did
> > not have enough time to go thru it in the design session. My write-up is
> > based on Angus' sample, actually a refinement, and on discussions we had
> in
> > breaks, plus it is trying to reflect all the good input from ML
> discussions
> > and Steve Baker's initial proposal.
> >
> > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Heat/Blueprints/hot-software-config-WIP
> >
> > Please review and provide feedback.
>
> Hi Thomas, thanks for spelling this out clearly.
>
> I am still -1 on anything that specifies the place a configuration is
> hosted inside the configuration definition itself. Because configurations
> are encapsulated by servers, it makes more sense to me that the servers
> (or server groups) would specify their configurations. If changing to a
> more logical model is just too hard for TOSCA to adapt to, then I suggest
> this be an area that TOSCA differs from Heat. We don't need two models
> for communicating configurations to servers, and I'd prefer Heat stay
> focused on making HOT template authors' and users' lives better.
>
>

I agree that the specification of which configs go on which servers should
be separated from both. This is how the good configuration tools like
puppet work anyway: you specify your servers, you specify ways to configure
them, and you specify which servers get which configs, all in potentially
separate places for maximum flexibility.

-- 
IRC: radix
Christopher Armstrong
Rackspace
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131112/8ee33438/attachment.html>