On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote:
> I'm totaly agree with Andrus. > > I think that AutoDeploy is complement of Puppet : > - Puppet can be in charge of the application server core installation, HTTP > server, etc > - AutoDeploy comes after to deploy final application in the application server They have fairly different use cases, and are often handled by different teams. httpd, the J2EE container etc are normally supplied as part of the OS, the app itself is typically developed in house by a team who don't really want to need to know about rpm/deb/pkg/tgz etc. In larger installations the base OS is often maintained by sysops, and the application itself by an application support team[1]. When I was working on ZENworks for Linux (nee Red Carpet) we looked into doing this and it's substantially different. The use cases are often quite divergent and doing it all in one tool is difficult. I see AutoDeploy fitting into a toolbox that might contain Puppet, func, cobbler, hyperic etc nicely. - Aidan [1] I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good model, just that it's a common one ;) -- Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid "Have we anything resembling a plan?" "Mm-hm. Ride till we find them... and kill them all." - The 13th Warrior --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
