Open Stack

Left my comments in https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/taskflow-mistral.

@Changbin, I think the most interesting section for you is “What’s Different”. Thanks. Hope this helps. If it doesn’t then let us know your specific questions.

@Joshua, thanks for your input on architecture. At a high-level it makes sense. We need to keep discussing it and switch to details. For that reason, like I said before, we want to create a very very simple taskflow based prototype (in progress). Then we’ll have a chance to think how to evolve TaskFlow properly so that it fits Mistral needs.

Renat Akhmerov
@ Mirantis Inc.

On 15 Mar 2014, at 00:31, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Sure, I can try to help,
> 
> I started https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/taskflow-mistral so that we can all work on this.
> 
> Although I'd rather not make architecture for mistral (cause that doesn't seem like an appropriate thing to do, for me to tell mistral what to do with its architecture), but I'm all for working on it together as a community (instead of me producing something that likely won't have much value).
> 
> Let us work on the above etherpad together and hopefully get some good ideas flowing :-)
> 
> From: Stan Lagun <slagun at mirantis.com>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Friday, March 14, 2014 at 12:11 AM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Mistral][Taskflow][all] Mistral + taskflow
> 
>> Joshua,
>> 
>> why wait? Why not just help Renat with his research on that integration and bring your own vision to the table? Write some 1-page architecture description on how Mistral can be built on top of TaskFlow and we discuss pros and cons. In would be much more productive.
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks Renat,
>>> 
>>> I'll keep waiting, and hoping that we can figure this out for everyone's benefit. Because in the end we are all much stronger working together and much weaker when not.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my really tiny device...
>>> 
>>> On Mar 13, 2014, at 11:41 PM, "Renat Akhmerov" <rakhmerov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Folks,
>>>> 
>>>> Mistral and TaskFlow are significantly different technologies. With different set of capabilities, with different target audience.
>>>> 
>>>> We may not be doing enough to clarify all the differences, I admit that. The challenge here is that people tend to judge having minimal amount of information about both things. As always, devil in the details. Stan is 100% right, “seems” is not an appropriate word here. Java seems to be similar to C++ at the first glance for those who have little or no knowledge about them.
>>>> 
>>>> To be more consistent I won’t be providing all the general considerations that I’ve been using so far (in etherpads, MLs, in personal discussions), it doesn’t seem to be working well, at least not with everyone. So to make it better, like I said in that different thread: we’re evaluating TaskFlow now and will share the results. Basically, it’s what Boris said about what could and could not be implemented in TaskFlow. But since the very beginning of the project I never abandoned the idea of using TaskFlow some day when it’s possible. 
>>>> 
>>>> So, again: Joshua, we hear you, we’re working in that direction.
>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm reminded of
>>>>>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/RenatAkhmerov/mistral-hong-kong-unconference-trac
>>>>>>>> k/2 where it seemed like we were doing much better collaboration, what has
>>>>>>>> happened to break this continuity?
>>>> 
>>>> Not sure why you think something is broken. We just want to finish the pilot with all the ‘must’ things working in it. This is a plan. Then we can revisit and change absolutely everything. Remember, to the great extent this is research. Joshua, this is what we talked about and agreed on many times. I know you might be anxious about that given the fact it’s taking more time than planned but our vision of the project has drastically evolved and gone far far beyond the initial Convection proposal. So the initial idea of POC is no longer relevant. Even though we finished the first version in December, we realized it wasn’t something that should have been shared with the community since it lacked some essential things.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Renat Akhmerov
>>>> @ Mirantis Inc.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sincerely yours
>> Stanislav (Stan) Lagun
>> Senior Developer
>> Mirantis
>> 35b/3, Vorontsovskaya St.
>> Moscow, Russia
>> Skype: stanlagun
>> www.mirantis.com
>> slagun at mirantis.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140317/a5122c1a/attachment.html>