Fox, Kevin M wrote:
I think my head just exploded. :)
That idea's similar to neutron sfc stuff, where you just say what needs to
connect to what, and it figures out the plumbing.
Ideally, it would map somehow to heat & docker COE & neutron sfc to produce a
final set of deployment scripts and then just runs it through the meat grinder. :)
It would be awesome to use. It may be very difficult to implement.
If you ignore the non container use case, I think it might be fairly easily
mappable to all three COE's though.
This feels like Heat with a more readable descriptive language. I don't
really like this approach, because you end up with the lowest common
denominator between COE's functionality. They are all different. And
they are at the peak of the differentiation phase. The LCD is bound to
be pretty basic.
This approach may be attractive for us as infrastructure providers, but
I also know this is not attractive to users who used Kubernetes before
and wants to continue to use Kubernetes (and don't really want to care
about whether OpenStack is running under the hood). They don't want to
learn another descriptor language or API, they just want to learn the
Kubernetes description model and API and take advantage of its unique
capabilities.
In summary, this may be a good solution for *existing* OpenStack users
to start playing with containerized workloads. But it is not a good
solution to attract the container cool kids to using OpenStack as their
base infrastructure provider. For those we need to make it as
transparent and simple to use their usual tools to deploy on top of
OpenStack clouds. The more they can ignore we are there, the better.
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
__________________________________________________________________________
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
