[openstack-dev] [Heat] HOT software configuration refined after design summit discussions

Steve Baker sbaker at redhat.com
Wed Nov 13 21:38:37 UTC 2013

On 11/14/2013 06:02 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 13/11/13 01:34, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Excerpts from Angus Salkeld's message of 2013-11-12 15:22:44 -0800:
>>> >IMO is should just be a template/formatted file.
>>> >
>> I'd prefer that we have the ability to pull in a chunk of in-line
>> template
>> as well. Perhaps that is the template resource, I have not thought that
>> through. It is not o-k, IMO, to push things off entirely to external
>> files/urls/"providers", etc. That is just cumbersome and unnecessary for
>> a common case which is to deploy two things using the same base config
>> with parameters having different values.
>> Of course, for my use case of having different topologies reusing bits
>> of config, it is perfect to have the reusable bits split into different
>> files.
> So, if I understand Angus's get_file suggestion correctly, it parses
> out to the equivalent of inlining the file's contents. So if you
> implement the resource as accepting inline data and add in get_file,
> then you get:
>   a) Composability, OR
>   b) Everything in one file
> but not both. I think that is probably sufficient, but I would be
> interested in your opinion: is it essential that you be able to
> compose software components defined in the same file?
> Note that the implementation of get_file would also involve
> python-heatclient automagically detecting it and making sure the
> relevant file is uploaded in the files section. So this shouldn't
> create a lot of mental overhead for the user.
> (BTW I think I like this plan.)
Yes, and get_file is a HOT function which is only evaluated where other
functions are evaluated, which is probably a good thing.

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list