Hi Dmitry, > Insert required metadata into roles that relies on another roles, for > compute it will be something like: > > compute: > requires: controller > 1
Yeah, that's actually what I was thinking about when I wrote: > Or should we improve it somehow so it would work for one nodes, > and will be ignored for others? So I'm +1 for extending our meta information with such dependencies. Sincerely, Igor On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Dmitriy Shulyak <dshul...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hi, > >> Can we ignore the problem above and remove this limitation? Or should >> we improve it somehow so it would work for one nodes, and will be >> ignored for others? > > I think that this validation needs to be accomplished in a different way, we > don't need 1 controller for the sake of 1 controller, > 1 controller is a dependency of compute/cinder/other roles. So from my pov > there is atleast 2 options: > > 1. Use tasks dependencies, and prevent deployment in case if some tasks > relies on controller. > But the implementation might be complicated > > 2. Insert required metadata into roles that relies on another roles, for > compute it will be something like: > compute: > requires: controller > 1 > We actually have DSL for declaring such things, we just need to specify this > requirements from other side. > > But in 2nd case we will still need to use tricks, like one provided by Matt, > for certain plugins. So maybe we should spend time and do 1st. > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev