On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:37:53 AM Matt Wagner wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 02:47:42PM +0200, Jan Provaznik wrote: > > On 08/21/2012 06:15 PM, Tomas Sedovic wrote: > > [heavy snipping below] > > > >As a side benefit, we would get the current and future features of Heat > > >for free: > > > > > >* high availability > > >* auto-scaling > > >* load-balancing > > I think these things would be really valuable additions to Aeolus. I > confess that I haven't fully wrapped my head around how some of these > things can best be adapted to a cross-cloud environments -- it seems > like it would introduce a bunch of new complexity. But if it works > reliably, I think it would be a fantastic feature to add! > > > nit: you probably meant 'deployment' instead of 'deployable' in the > > paragraph above. > > It occurs to me that if we as developers (and I'm absolutely including > myself here -- I'm a repeat offender) keep mixing these terms up, it > might make sense to try to change them. The terms are similar and one > morphs into another at a certain point, so it's very easy to mix them up > even if you know the distinction inside and out. I can't imagine users > find this any easier than we do. (This is really a digression from the > real topic here, but I wanted to mention it.) > > > - the deployment launch setup becomes more complicated, a request > > will pass through 3 standalone services: > > Conductor -> Heat -> Deltacloud -> Provider > > I was noticing the other day that we don't do a good job of accurately > catching and reporting errors from other components, or making it clear > which component the problem is. So if you have, say, trouble building an > image, you need to poke around a bit to figure out if it's a Conductor > problem or a Factory problem, and then you need to figure out what the > actual error is. Adding an extra component seems like it would make this > even more complicated. > > I'm all for adding Heat, mind you. I just think that if we do, we're > going to have to commit to good error handling and reporting, without > leaving people to read multiple logs to figure out where the problem > began.
+1 on this. I think we should commit to this regardless integration of Heat. > > -- Matt -- With regards Petr Blaho
