Open Stack

Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message on 13.11.2013 09:59:56:
> From: Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com>
> To: openstack-dev <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>,
> Date: 13.11.2013 10:03
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] HOT software configuration
> refined after design summit discussions
>
> Excerpts from Thomas Spatzier's message of 2013-11-13 00:28:59 -0800:
> > Angus Salkeld <asalkeld at redhat.com> wrote on 13.11.2013 00:22:44:
<snip>
> > >
> > >
> > > This is what Thomas defined, with one optimisation.
> > > - The webconfig is a yaml template.
> > >
> > > As you say the component is static - if so why even put it inline in
> > > the template (well that was my thinking, it seems like a template not
> > > really a resource).
> >
> > Yes, exactly. Our idea was to put it in its own file since it is really
> > static and having it in its own file makes it much more reusable.
> > With 'WebConfig' defined inline in the template as in the snippet
above,
> > you will have to update many template files where you use the
component,
> > whereas you will only have to touch one place when it is in its own
file.
> > Ok, the example above looks simple, but in reality we will see more
complex
> > sets of parameters etc.
> > Maybe for very simple use cases, we can allow a shortcut of inlining it
in
> > the template (I mentioned this in the wiki) and avoid the need for a
> > separate file.
> >
>
> I think I understand now, and we're all basically on the same page. As
> usual, I was confused by the subtleties.

Yeah, I think we are all on the same page, just sorting out the details on
how to express the same thing.
Maybe we can still work a bit on syntax details to make it more intuitive.

>
> I think the in-line capability is critical to have in the near-term
> plan, but would +2 an implementation that left it out at the beginning.

I agree to have the inline version as a shortcut, and I think we can have
if for free with what is on the wiki page.
You could basically just use the OS::Heat::ChefSoftwareComponent resource
in the separate template file directly in the template that contains the
server. Maybe we will need this additional association class then if people
have problems with having a pointer to the server from the component.

>
> Before we "ratify" this and people run off and write code, I'd like to
> present my "problems" in TripleO and try to see if I can express them
> using the spec you've laid out. Will try and do that in the next couple
> of days.

Yes, that would be great. If you can share your thought experiment on an
etherpad or something, I could also try to refine the proposal if you hit
cases where it does not work.

Maybe we can also get together after the IRC meeting today and have some
discussion with Angus, Steven, Steve etc.

>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>