Open Stack

On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Ed Leafe wrote:

> Me too. I think that this is one case where thinking in SQL messes you
> up. Sure, you can probably make it work by hacking in the concept of
> infinity into the code, but there will still be a conceptual
> disconnect. And later, when we inevitably need to enhance resource
> providers and their capabilities, we will end up creating another hack
> to work around what is an actual inventory and what is this new
> infinite inventory thing.

/me shrugs

This has been an interesting exercise because it does get people to
express their ideas and their concerns a bit more. Which even if it
doesn't change this round of stuff that we create helps for the next
round.

In my case my interest in exploring the model I've been describing is
largely driven by wanting to _not_ think in SQL but in a way that is
more simple math but with a very constrained grammar.

Part of the goal here is to make "inevitable enhancement" which
involves a different conceptual model something that is constrained
to such an extent that it might be impossible and thus has to happen
in a separate service; so that we can avoid monoliths

This constrained grammar thing is really important.

> Oh, and think of the person coming in new to the placement engine, and
> having to explain what an infinite inventory is. Imagine their face.

Weird, I wonder what experience I had that makes that so natural for me.

I conceded a long time ago, but you guys keep saying things that
make me want to keep talking about it.

-- 
Chris Dent               ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)         http://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent