Open Stack

I have a preference towards option 2 as well. I usually use templates with all the logic in it, and an environment file with just the specific parameters defined for launching an instance of the template so I can repeatedly deploy/delete/redeploy it.

I've got a good template set I think that would be awesome to see in a glare artefact.

Could this template set be wrapped up:
https://github.com/EMSL-MSC/heat-templates/tree/master/cfn/lib

And the main entrypoint template is:
https://github.com/EMSL-MSC/heat-templates/blob/master/cfn/lib/SimpleServer.yaml

Documentation on how to use it is here:
https://github.com/EMSL-MSC/heat-templates/blob/master/cfn/lib/SimpleServer.txt

With it implemented with Option 2, the user can just copy the two example environments at the bottom of the docs there, tweak it slightly and launch some fairly advanced servers.

Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________
From: Mikhail Fedosin [mfedosin at mirantis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 6:58 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glare][Heat][TripleO] Heat artifact type



On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Qiming Teng <tengqim at linux.vnet.ibm.com<mailto:tengqim at linux.vnet.ibm.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 06:44:06PM +0300, Oleksii Chuprykov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Today it was announced that Glare is ready for public review
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-July/099553.html So
> we are ready to start working on integration Heat with Glare and
> implementing a POC. After discussions with Glare team we see two design
> options:
>
> 1) Create one artifact type that will contain template, nested templates
> and environments.
> Pros: It is easy to maintain integrity. Since artifact is immutable, we can
> guarantee the consistency and prevent from accidentally removing of
> dependent environment.
> Cons: If we need to add new environments to use them with template, we need
> to create new artifact.
>
> 2) Create 2 artifact types: environment and template.
> Pros: It is easy to add new environments. You just need to create new
> dependency from template artifact to environment one.
> Cons: Some environment can be (mistakenly) removed, and template that have
> dependencies on it will be in inconsistent state.

Option 2 looks more flexible to me. I'm not sure we are encouraging
users to introduce or rely on a hard dependency from a template to an
environment file. With that, it is still good to know whether glare
supports the concept of 'reference' where a referenced artifact cannot
be deleted.

Hey!

Indeed, option 2 is more flexible, but in this case users have to manually control dependencies, which is may be hard sometimes. Also, initially Glare won't support 'hard' dependencies, this feature will be added in next version, because it requires additional discussions. For this reason I recommend option 1 and let Glare control template consistency for you, it won't allow users to break anything.

Best,
Mike


 - Qiming

> So we want to hear your opinions and suggestions on the matter. Thanks in
> advance!
>
> Best regards,
> Oleksii Chuprykov


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
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/20160720/aa8965fb/attachment.html>