Open Stack

Hello,

I would like to suggest an idea for "heat-templates target audiences" for
today heat meeting.

When I discovered AWS CloudFormation last yeat, creating my first
templates, I had difficulties searching information about how to implement
ressources. The main reason was the different places of documentation :

- AWS CloudFormation documentation(1) : with some example templates,
template snippets, and template references.
- The documentation of the ressource itself (EC2, EBS, etc), when you don't
know what is a specific parameter, not well described in CloudFormation doc.
- CloudFormation template page (2) : with some templates showing how to
deploy with different tools, and some opensource application.

Most of the time the information I was looking for was in one ot these 3
sources, but hard to find.
Template references shows a description of each ressource's property. It
does not show how to use linked ressources, like an EC2 instance and an EBS
volume together (or sometime, in the snippets, but it's really not
comprehensive for complicated ressources).
When you don't have the information in this doc, you have to find a
template doing what you want and copy.

I think Heat could be better than that. Here is my idea.
We should only have 2 sources of information when someone wants to know how
to use a ressource in a template :

- First in the documentation, with all paremeters explained, refering each
time to a snippet.
- Then heat-repository, a collection of application template like « Open
Source Applications » in AWS template page (2).

When a user wants to know how to use a ressource, he can first use the
documentation, and then see an example of a real template with an app close
to his app (same language, same architecture).

My point is, we should not mix documentation example and template like AWS
does. Heat-template should only have production ready template, with app
like Drupal, Mediawiki, Redmine, etc, with 1 or 2 version : Multi-AZ or not.


1 -
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/Welcome.html
2 - http://aws.amazon.com/fr/cloudformation/aws-cloudformation-templates/


I try to explain my idea in english, not my native language, so If
something means nothing, please tell me :)

Pierre FREUND



2013/5/14 Randall Burt <randall.burt at rackspace.com>

> On May 14, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Steven Hardy <shardy at redhat.com>
>  wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I wanted to communicate a recent change we've made on the Heat project,
> > which has moved our example/demo templates and associated tools into a
> new
> > repository:
> >
> > https://github.com/openstack/heat-templates
> >
> > Contributions and fixes can be provided via gerrit, using the same
> workflow
> > as we do for code:
> >
> > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Gerrit_Workflow
> >
> > We've also created a new project in Launchpad, so we can track
> > template-related issues and features separately from the main codebase:
> >
> > https://launchpad.net/heat-templates
> >
> > All of our documentation and wiki pages *should* now point to the new
> repo,
> > but if you do find any stale references to the old in-tree templates,
> please
> > do let us know :)
> >
> > The initial aim of this repository is to provide working examples, which
> > demonstrate core Heat features, and also to provide a platform for easier
> > collaboration while we work through the design process for the proposed
> new
> > DSL/HOT template format.
> >
> > I'd also be keen to see some discussion about what the scope should be
> for the
> > target audience, ie if this could be an appropriate place to grow a
> community
> > of testers and template-authors and promote collaboration and reuse
> beyond
> > developers writing test/demo templates - some discussion in #heat
> recently
> > indicates this may be a topic people are interested in debating :)
>
> +1 to this, though I think we'd want to separate "supported" examples used
> for testing/validation from contributed templates. Should these contributed
> templates be limited to using resources provided in the core distribution
> or can they include optional resource plug-ins (from Stackforge for
> example)? Personally I think it would be fine as long as the all resources
> used are publicly available.
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130515/2cf2270d/attachment.html>