Open Stack

Excerpts from Doug Davis's message of 2013-04-10 05:27:54 -0700:
> 
> +1
> 
> I believe that the core of Heat should, for the most part, remain pretty
> agnostic
> to the format of the deployment descriptions.
> 
> There will be a bit of pain for users of Heat for a while until the dust
> settles and
> the community gravitates towards the preferred format.  But I'd prefer to
> let the users
> and the community decide the winner instead of just us doing it right now.
> 

Right, I am most concerned with deciding on our principles, not on
trying to crown a king.  If a user shows up with an entirely new way to
drive Heat, but it does not compromise Heat, I think we should be quite
enthusiastic about accepting it into Heat.

There is a side concern, which is that Heat's documentation will need to
focus on one standard for the sake of user education and for gathering
steam around the format we think will benefit the broadest base of users.
This isn't to the exclusion of others, but without that kind of focus,
users will get frustrated.

Maybe TOSCA is a great way to bring large scale applications and
enterprise users into Heat, but that may be too heavy and narrow focus
for Heat to push as "the way to learn Heat".


Clint Byrum
HP Cloud Services