Open Stack

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019, Eric Fried wrote:

> Did we decide on "traits (and/or aggregates) flow down" too? I'm losing track of how all these things interact and which combinations are necessary to solve which use cases.

I agree that it is getting hard to track. It seems that at least
both Jay and I are interested in seeing if "X flow down" is
workable.

What would make sense, to me, is to form a coherent model that
captures these ideas in a consistent fashion, and see which uses
cases it can satisfy well, which it cannot, and if those it cannot
can be substituted by some other solution (or dismissed (as not
cloudy?)).

The ideas seem to be:

* X flow down
* same_tree:$GROUP_A:$GROUP_B group policy referencing
* resource-less resource providers (and thus request groups with
   requireds, but not resources)

Does that jibe with what other people have been reading and
thinking?

Note that I don't think we should be looking for the perfect 100%
solution here. What we should be looking for is a good model that
makes it easier to satisfy some large percentage of the use cases
efficiently (both in running the solution and creating it).
Sometimes you can't do everything.

-- 
Chris Dent                       ٩◔̯◔۶           https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent