<html><body>
<p><tt><font size="2">Clint Byrum <clint@fewbar.com> wrote on 10/16/2013 03:02:13 PM:<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2013-10-16 06:16:33 -0700:<br>
</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">> > <br>
> > For me the crucial question is, how do we define the interface for <br>
> > synchronising and passing data from and to arbitrary applications <br>
> > running under an arbitrary configuration management system?<br>
> > <br>
> > Compared to this, defining the actual format in which software <br>
> > applications are specified in HOT seems like a Simple Matter of <br>
> > Bikeshedding ;)<br>
> > <br>
> <br>
> Agreed. This is one area where juju excels (making cross-node message<br>
> passing simple). So perhaps we should take a look at what works from the<br>
> juju model and copy it.<br>
</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">Actually, this exactly the point </font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">"how do we define the interface for synchronising and passing data </font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">from and to arbitrary applications running under an arbitrary </font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">configuration management system?"</font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">I was addressing in my message/proposal a couple of days back on the </font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">mailing list :-) Glad to see that echoed again. I am proposing that </font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">Heat should have a higher (than current wait-conditions/signals) level</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">abstraction for synchronization and data exchange. I do not mind it</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">being message passing as in JuJu. Based on our experience I am proposing</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">a zookeeper style global data space with blocking-reads, and non-blocking</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">writes.</font></tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">Thanks,</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">LN</font></tt><br>
<br>
</body></html>