Open Stack

Hi Angus, Julien,

No major disagreements.

My thinking is that we should provide more application developer focused
mechanism for customizing workflows (point #3). This may not necessarily be an entirely new DSL.
It could just be additions to the current Plan structure. For example, we could add a section that
defines what stages we want a particular assembly to go through (unit testing, functional testing vs. just unit testing).
These stages could actually be just the task names from a predefined Mistral workbook.
Btw, the stages could be listed in a different file (so not tied with a Plan).

I guess the main point is, requiring application developers to define a complete workflow
consisting of, what is the entry point, what should happen on failure, how many times a task should
be re-tried on failure, etc. seem too low level for application developers to be describing while deploying their apps to Solum.
Shouldn't application developers be more concerned with 'what' not 'how'?

- Devdatta

________________________________
From: Julien Vey [vey.julien at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:58 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [solum] reviews for the new API

Hi Angus,

I really agree with you. I would insist on #3, most of our users will use the default workbook, and only advanced users will want to customize the workflow. "advanced" users should easily understand a mistral workbook, cause they are "advanced"

To add to the cons of creating our own DSL, it will require a lot more work, more design discussions, more maintenance... We might end up doing what mistral is already doing. If we have some difficulties with Mistral's DSL, we can talk with the team, and contribute back our experience of using Mistral.

Julien


2014-06-04 14:11 GMT+02:00 Angus Salkeld <angus.salkeld at rackspace.com<mailto:angus.salkeld at rackspace.com>>:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all

I have posted this series and it has evoked a surprising (to me) amount
of discussion so I wanted to clarify some things and talk to some of the
issues so we can move forward.

So first note is this is an early posting and still is not tested much.

https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/solum+branch:master+topic:new-api,n,z

First the terminology
   I have a pipeline meaning the association between a mistral workbook,
   a trigger url and a plan. This is a running entity not just a
   different workbook.

The main issue seems to be the extent to which I am exposing the mistral
workbook. Many of you expected a simpler workflow DSL that would be
converted into the mistral workbook.

The reason for me doing it this way are:
1) so we don't have to write much code
2) this is an iterative process. Let's try it the simple way first and
   only make it more complicated if we really need to (the agile way?).
3) to be consistent in the way we treat heat templates, mistral
   workbooks and language packs - i.e. we provide standard ones and
   allow you to customize down to the underlying openstack primitives
   if you want (we should aim for this to be only a small percentage
   of our users).
   eg. pipeline == (check-build-deploy mistral workbook +
                    basic-docker heat template + custom plan)
   here the user just choose the heat template and workbook from a list
   of options.

4) if the mistral dsl is difficult for our users to work with we should
   give the mistral devs a chance to improve it before working around
   it.
5) our users are primary developers and I don't think the current
   mistral DSL is tricky to figure out for someone that can code.
6) doing it this way we can make use of heat and mistral's horizon
   plugins and link to them from the pipeline instead of having to
   redo all of the same pages. In a similar why that heat links to
   servers/volumes etc from a running stack.

- -Angus


Some things to note:
- - the entire mistral engine can be replaced with an engine level plugin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTjwz2AAoJEFrDYBLxZjWoEr0H/3nh66Umdw2nGUEs+SikigXa
XAN90NHHPuf1ssEqrF/rMjRKg+GvrLx+31x4oFfHEj7oplzGeVA9TJC0HOp4h6dh
iCeXAHF7KX+t4M4VuZ0y9TJB/jLxfxg4Qge7ENJpNDD/gggjMYSNhcWzBG87QBE/
Mi4YAvxNk1/C3/YZYx2Iujq7oM+6tflTeuoG6Ld72JMHryWT5/tdYZrCMnuD4F7Q
8a6Ge3t1dQh7ZlNHEuRDAg3G5oy+FInXyFasXYlYbtdpTxDL8/HbXegyAcsw42on
2ZKRDYBubQr1MJKvSV5I3jjOe4lxXXFylbWpYpoU8Y5ZXEKp69R4wrcVISF1jQQ=
=P0Sl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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/20140604/36ab15b8/attachment.html>