I have a few questions left unanswered by the blueprint/wiki: #1 - Should the true default configuration-group for a service-type be customizable by the cloud provider?
#2 - Should a user be able to enumerate the entire actualized/realized set of values for a configuration-group, or just the overrides? #3 - Should a user be able to apply a different configuration-group on a master, than say, a slave? #4 - If a user creates a new configuration-group with values equal to that of the default configuration-group, what is the expected behavior? #5 - For GET /configuration/parameters, where is the list of supported parameters and their metadata sourced from? #6 - Should a user be able to reset a configuration-group to the current default configuration-group? #7 - Is a new configuration-group a clone of the then current default configuration-group with various changes, or will inheritence be utilized? #8 - How should the state of pending configuration-group changes be reflected in GET /instances/:id ? How will this state be persisted? #9 - Reminder: Once multiple service-types and versions are supported, the configuration-group will need a service-type field. #10 - Should dynamic values (via functions and operators) in configuration-groups be supported? Example: innodb_buffer_pool_size = 150 * flavor['ram']/512 My Thoughts: #1 - Yes #2 - Actualized #3 - Yes #4 - Depends on whether the approach for configuration-groups is to clone or to inherit. #5 - ? #6 - Yes #7 - ? #8 - ? #9 - N/A #10 - In the first iteration of this feature I don't think it's an absolute necessity, but it's definitely a nice-to-have. The design/implementation should not preclude this from being easily added in the future. Where "?" == "I'd like to think about it a bit more, but I have a gut feeling" Thoughts? On 10/1/13 7:55 PM, "Michael Basnight" <mbasni...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 1, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Vipul Sabhaya wrote: >> >> So from this API, I see that a configuration is a standalone resource >>that could be applied to N number of instances. It's not clear to me >>what the API is for 'applying' a configuration to an existing instance. > >https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Trove/Configurations#Update_an_Instance_.2 >8PUT.29 > >> Also if we change a single item in a given configuration, does that >>change propagate to all instances that configuration belongs to? > >Thats a good question. Maybe PATCH'ing a configuration is not a good >thing. We either have 1) drift between an attached config on an instance >vs the template, or 2) a confusing situation where we are potentially >updating configurations on running instances. Another possibility is that >a PATCH would in effect, clone the existing template, if its in use, >giving it a new UUID with the updated parameters. But im not sure i like >that approach eitherÅ Its really not a PATCH at that point anyway id >think. > >Blueprint designers, im looking to you for clarity. > >> What about making 'configuration' a sub-resource of /instances? >> >> Unless we think configurations will be common amongst instances for a >>given tenant, it may not make sense to make them high level resources. > >As in /instances/configurations, or /instances/{id}/configurations ? I do >see commonality between a configuration and a bunch of instances, such >that a configuration is not unique to a single instance. I can see a >reseller having a tweaked out "works with _insert your favorite CMS >here_" template applied to all the instances they provision. > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev