Sure, I was thinking that since heat would do autoscaling persay, then heat would say ask trove to make more databases (autoscale policy here) then this would cause trove to actually callback into heat to make more instances.
Just feels a little weird, idk. Why didn't heat just make those instances "on behalf of trove" to begin with and then tell trove "make these instances into databases". Then trove doesn't really need to worry about calling into heat to do the instance creation "work", and trove can just worry about converting those "blank instances " into databases (for example). But maybe I am missing other context also :) Sent from my really tiny device... On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:04 AM, "Clint Byrum" <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2013-09-11 01:00:37 -0700: >> +1 >> >> The assertions are not just applicable to autoscaling but to software in >> general. I hope we can make autoscaling "just enough" simple to work. >> >> The circular heat<=>trove example is one of those that does worry me a >> little. It feels like something is not structured right if that it is needed >> (rube goldberg like). I am not sure what could be done differently, just my >> gut feeling that something is "off". > > Joshua, can you elaborate on "the circular heat<=>trove example"? > > I don't see Heat and Trove's relationship as circular. Heat has a Trove > resource, and (soon? now?) Trove can use Heat to simplify its control > of underlying systems. This is a stack, not a circle, or did I miss > something? > > _______________________________________________ > 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
