Open Stack

On 14/04/16 10:16 -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Denis Egorenko <degorenko at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>> Some of UI plugins, like murano-dashboard, needs to add extra parameters
>>> https://github.com/openstack/murano-dashboard/blob/master/muranodashboard/local/local_settings.py.example
>>> to local_settings file (which comes from Horizon).
>>> My question is: Should puppet-horizon module provide those extra
>>> parameters coming from each official UI plugins? or this kind of things
>>> should come from specific a puppet-{ui-plugin}?
>>
>>
>> Well, not exactly puppet-{ui-plugin}. For example, we already have murano
>> module and it has manifests for UI plugin installation.
>>
>> On a one side, in such way we are keeping all module related configuration
>> in one place.
>> On another side, all UI configuration probably should be placed in horizon
>> module. But in this case, we need to support in horizon module full
>> configuration for each UI plugin.
>>
>> So, i think we can keep UI configuration in-place (in separate module) if we
>> have this module at all. For cases, when we need only support some UI
>> settings/plugins - we can keep it in puppet-horizon.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>Does Murano uses the same local_settings.py file as Horizon? If yes,
>we might stop using puppet-murano to manage this file.
>And maybe find a mechanism in puppet-horizon with a provider, so we
>can have a plugin architecture like:
>horizon::plugins::murano
>horizon::plugins::foobar
>that would use this provider to configure a common local_settings.py
>and notify service on change, like we do for .conf files.
>
>What do you think?
>
I like the sound of this, keeps the file managements central like all
the _config providers, while allowing each module to specify the
parts that only it knows or cares about.

-j