Open Stack

Eric Day wrote:
> I agree with Vish, I think the correct approach is 3. I have some
> ideas on terminology and how to think about this. A "scheduler"
> should not be it's own top-level service. It should instead be a
> plugin point (more like auth or db). It would plug into new service
> called "kernel". Another way to look at it is s/scheduler/kernel/
> and expand kernel.

I agree (and that was my point above): with a
kernel/supervisor/orchestrator top-level service, you should fold the
scheduler function in it.

That said, if the scheduler ends up being a plugin in the
kernel/supervisor and no longer it's own top-level service, it looks to
me you're advocating approach 2 (scheduler is rewrapped into some sort
of supervisor), rather than approach 3 (create a compute supervisor
separate from scheduler) ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack