As a technical person, I would love to hear the major/significant/big differences between Mistral and TaskFlow.
Last October I read this blog http://www.mirantis.com/blog/announcing-mistral-task-flow-as-a-service/ , and also saw ML/IRC communications, but still could not quite figure out the grand/new vision of Mistral. Not to mention that vision keeps evolving rapidly as mentioned by Renat. Please enlighten me. Thanks Changbin On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Renat Akhmerov <rakhme...@mirantis.com>wrote: > Folks, > > Mistral and TaskFlow are significantly different technologies. With > different set of capabilities, with different target audience. > > We may not be doing enough to clarify all the differences, I admit that. > The challenge here is that people tend to judge having minimal amount of > information about both things. As always, devil in the details. Stan is > 100% right, "seems" is not an appropriate word here. Java seems to be > similar to C++ at the first glance for those who have little or no > knowledge about them. > > To be more consistent I won't be providing all the general considerations > that I've been using so far (in etherpads, MLs, in personal discussions), > it doesn't seem to be working well, at least not with everyone. So to make > it better, like I said in that different thread: we're evaluating TaskFlow > now and will share the results. Basically, it's what Boris said about what > could and could not be implemented in TaskFlow. But since the very > beginning of the project I never abandoned the idea of using TaskFlow some > day when it's possible. > > So, again: Joshua, we hear you, we're working in that direction. > > >>>> I'm reminded of >>>> >>>> http://www.slideshare.net/RenatAkhmerov/mistral-hong-kong-unconference-trac >>>> k/2<http://www.slideshare.net/RenatAkhmerov/mistral-hong-kong-unconference-track/2>where >>>> it seemed like we were doing much better collaboration, what has >>>> happened to break this continuity? >>>> >>> > Not sure why you think something is broken. We just want to finish the > pilot with all the 'must' things working in it. This is a plan. Then we can > revisit and change absolutely everything. Remember, to the great extent > this is research. Joshua, this is what we talked about and agreed on many > times. I know you might be anxious about that given the fact it's taking > more time than planned but our vision of the project has drastically > evolved and gone far far beyond the initial Convection proposal. So the > initial idea of POC is no longer relevant. Even though we finished the > first version in December, we realized it wasn't something that should have > been shared with the community since it lacked some essential things. > > > Renat Akhmerov > @ Mirantis Inc. > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev