On pátek 20. ledna 2017 2:51:06 CET Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 06:04:58PM +0100, Ivan Necas wrote: > > Lukas Zapletal <l...@redhat.com> writes: > > >> I'm not sure I follow what you mean by administrative tasks. Note that > > >> reports > > >> import and puppet envs import are core actiones that now run as a > > >> foreman > > >> task > > >> (both synchronous and asynchronous variants). By making the UI part > > >> optional > > >> users would not be able to monitor their progress, cancel them etc if > > >> they > > >> don't install the plugin. What would be the benefit of such setup? > > > > > > I am not telling not to ship it, but making it optional (but installed > > > by > > > default). Assuming that processes would work normally without the UI > > > part. > > > > > > Other option is to simply move the UI into core, I don't think we should > > > make our decomposition effort a dogma. Let's be realistic. > > > > > > Benefit? Solving the stalemate perhaps :-) > > > > So the latest updates updates if you don't follow the packaging PR [1] > > > > The goal right now is to: > > 1. unblock the nightlies > > 2. keep the async operations possible > > 3. prefer proper way over hacks > > > > Although the goal is to get the foreman-tasks functionality to the core, > > I don't think we can effort blocking nightlies much longer. To preserve > > the async possibility there. > > > > I'm looking into leveraging ActiveJob interface to define the async > > operations we added. The idea is: when there is no foreman-tasks, the > > in-thread executor, that already is build into Rails, will be used, and > > from the end user, it will behave as before. > > > > However, when foreman-tasks will be around and configured to be used for > > async processing, the operation will go though that. > > > > Once this would be done, we could start adding the UI around async > > operations directly to the core: so the foreman-tasks functionality > > would be gradually moved to the core this way: once the core is given > > certain functionality, it can be removed from the tasks. > > > > The important thing here is we could work on enhancing tasking > > infrastructure in core while still supporting the current foreman-tasks > > users and delivering enhancements there in the meantime. > > > > I'm setting the deadline for this on Monday EOB. If by that time turns > > our this plan is not feasible, we would need to sacrifice goal 1., 2. or > > 3. > > To me this sounds like a good plan.
+1 If active job does not work we could also fallback to something like `if defined?(ForemanTask)` and keep working on active job alternative. -- Marek -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
