Open Stack

As a technical person, I would love to hear the major/significant/big
differences between Mistral and TaskFlow.

Last October I read this blog
http://www.mirantis.com/blog/announcing-mistral-task-flow-as-a-service/ ,
and also saw ML/IRC communications, but still could not quite figure out
the grand/new vision of Mistral. Not to mention that vision keeps evolving
rapidly as mentioned by Renat.

Please enlighten me.


Thanks

Changbin


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Renat Akhmerov <rakhmerov at mirantis.com>wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Mistral and TaskFlow are significantly different technologies. With
> different set of capabilities, with different target audience.
>
> We may not be doing enough to clarify all the differences, I admit that.
> The challenge here is that people tend to judge having minimal amount of
> information about both things. As always, devil in the details. Stan is
> 100% right, "seems" is not an appropriate word here. Java seems to be
> similar to C++ at the first glance for those who have little or no
> knowledge about them.
>
> To be more consistent I won't be providing all the general considerations
> that I've been using so far (in etherpads, MLs, in personal discussions),
> it doesn't seem to be working well, at least not with everyone. So to make
> it better, like I said in that different thread: we're evaluating TaskFlow
> now and will share the results. Basically, it's what Boris said about what
> could and could not be implemented in TaskFlow. But since the very
> beginning of the project I never abandoned the idea of using TaskFlow some
> day when it's possible.
>
> So, again: Joshua, we hear you, we're working in that direction.
>
>
>>>> I'm reminded of
>>>>
>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/RenatAkhmerov/mistral-hong-kong-unconference-trac
>>>> k/2<http://www.slideshare.net/RenatAkhmerov/mistral-hong-kong-unconference-track/2>where it seemed like we were doing much better collaboration, what has
>>>> happened to break this continuity?
>>>>
>>>
> Not sure why you think something is broken. We just want to finish the
> pilot with all the 'must' things working in it. This is a plan. Then we can
> revisit and change absolutely everything. Remember, to the great extent
> this is research. Joshua, this is what we talked about and agreed on many
> times. I know you might be anxious about that given the fact it's taking
> more time than planned but our vision of the project has drastically
> evolved and gone far far beyond the initial Convection proposal. So the
> initial idea of POC is no longer relevant. Even though we finished the
> first version in December, we realized it wasn't something that should have
> been shared with the community since it lacked some essential things.
>
>
> Renat Akhmerov
> @ Mirantis Inc.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140314/9957a9b1/attachment.html>