On 25 April 2014 04:49, Chris Armstrong <chris.armstr...@rackspace.com> wrote: > On April 23, 2014 at 7:47:37 PM, Robert Collins (robe...@robertcollins.net) > wrote: > > Hi, we've got this summit session planned - > http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/428 which is really about > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/heat-workflow-vs-convergence > > We'd love feedback and questions - this is a significant amount of > work, but work I (and many others based on responses so far) believe > it is needed to really take Heat to users and ops teams. > > Right now we're looking for both high and low level design and input. > > One thing I’m curious about is whether we would gain benefit from explicitly > managing resources as state machines. I’m not very familiar with TaskFlow, > but my impression is that it basically knows how to run a defined workflow > through multiple steps until completion. Heat resources will, with this > change, become objects that need to react to inputs at any point in time, so > I wonder if it’s better to model them as a finite state machine instead of > just with workflows. > > Granted, I’m pretty unfamiliar with TaskFlow, so I may be off the mark here. > I would like to point out that a new very simple but concise FSM-modeling > library was recently released called “Machinist”, and it may be worth taking > a look at: https://github.com/hybridcluster/machinist
Directly writing the mgmt code in an FSM structure would be pretty cool I think. It is also perhaps orthogonal, but well worth some closer examination. Can you perhaps sketch something up for folk to eyeball? As far as I see TaskFlow for the current proposal - we're basically getting 'run a function' as an action, so its a lot simpler in concept. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev