Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote on 10/16/2013 03:02:13 PM:
> > Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2013-10-16 06:16:33 -0700: > > > > For me the crucial question is, how do we define the interface for > > synchronising and passing data from and to arbitrary applications > > running under an arbitrary configuration management system? > > > > Compared to this, defining the actual format in which software > > applications are specified in HOT seems like a Simple Matter of > > Bikeshedding ;) > > > > Agreed. This is one area where juju excels (making cross-node message > passing simple). So perhaps we should take a look at what works from the > juju model and copy it. Actually, this exactly the point "how do we define the interface for synchronising and passing data from and to arbitrary applications running under an arbitrary configuration management system?" I was addressing in my message/proposal a couple of days back on the mailing list :-) Glad to see that echoed again. I am proposing that Heat should have a higher (than current wait-conditions/signals) level abstraction for synchronization and data exchange. I do not mind it being message passing as in JuJu. Based on our experience I am proposing a zookeeper style global data space with blocking-reads, and non-blocking writes. Thanks, LN
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
