On April 23, 2014 at 7:47:37 PM, Robert Collins (robe...@robertcollins.net<mailto: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 -- -- Christopher Armstrong IRC: radix
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
