Open Stack

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 06:32:07PM +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 05:59 PM, Giulio Fidente wrote:
> > On 09/14/2016 02:31 PM, Steven Hardy wrote:
> > > Related to this is the future of all of the per-role customization
> > > interfaces.  I'm thinking these don't really make sense to maintain
> > > long-term now we have the new composable services architecture, and it
> > > would be better if we can deprecate them and move folks towards the
> > > composable services templates instead?
> > 
> > my experience is that the ExtraConfig interfaces have been useful to
> > provide arbitrary hiera and class includes
> > 
> > I wonder if we could ship by default some roles parsing those parameters?
> 
> thinking more about it, the *ExtraConfig interfaces also offer a simple
> mechanism to *override* any hiera setting we push via the templates ...
> which isn't easy to achieve with roles
> 
> a simple short-term solution could be to merge ExtraConfig in the $role
> mapped_data, thoughts?

Thanks for the feedback, so yeah I agree there are reasons to keep the
ExtraConfig *parameters* around, or some similar interface.

I probably should have clarified this in my original post, but there are
two types of *ExtraConfig interfaces, the parameters you refer to, which
simply override some hieradata (we probably want to keep this, but it still
means we have ExtraConfig tied the the role (not the service), but
presumably an operator will know what services are deployed on what role).

The second (and more problematic from a containers point of view) is the
ExtraConfig *resources*, where you can pass an arbitrary heat template,
which typically is used to run stuff on the host (which will be impossible,
or at least not useful on an atomic host in a fully containerized
deployment).

I think your concerns are mostly around the ExtraConfig *parameters* thus,
provided we maintain some way to do those hiera overrides, e.g the
documented interfaces for Ceph ExtraConfig can still be used?

Steve