On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:13:36PM -0600, Alex Heneveld wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks Chip for the steer.
>
> I have created draft feature proposals for the two work strands at:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Feature+Proposal+--+Composite+Application+Blueprints
> htt
Hi All,
Thanks Chip for the steer.
I have created draft feature proposals for the two work strands at:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Feature+Proposal+--+Composite+Application+Blueprints
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Feature+Proposal+--+In-Guest
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Alex Heneveld
wrote:
>
> Point of order questions: should the assembled volunteers develop the
> proposal on the dev list, or should we migrate to a different forum (jira
> issue, sub-list, somewhere else) to avoid clogging the main list, then come
> back with it
mailto:kel...@bbits.ca]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:51 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PaaS Enablement: Composite Application Blueprints
>> (#576)
>>
>> This was a good read, I think the simpler vApp method makes sense for
bits.ca]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:51 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PaaS Enablement: Composite Application Blueprints
(#576)
This was a good read, I think the simpler vApp method makes sense for an
infrastructure tool. And could be a great opportunity to
>multiple blueprints and any VMs to a project.
>
>Jie
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Kelceydamage@bbits [mailto:kel...@bbits.ca]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:51 AM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PaaS Enable
che.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:24 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] PaaS Enablement: Composite Application Blueprints
> (#576)
>
> My comment about the projects was that as they stand, they are no
> recoverable. When you start a proj
7, 2013 9:47 AM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] PaaS Enablement: Composite Application Blueprints
>(#576)
>
>Great analysis Chris!
>
>In terms of the blueprint model, I am also in favor of something simple.
>CloudFormation can do what vApp is
Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:51 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PaaS Enablement: Composite Application Blueprints
> (#576)
>
> This was a good read, I think the simpler vApp method makes sense for an
> infrastructure tool. And could be a great opp
find JSON good for when I never look at the data and
>> simply pass to a Python dictionary, however for interaction I am going to
>> back the YAML choice.
>>>>
>>>> KELCEY DAMAGE
>>>> Infrastructure Systems Architect
>>>> www.backbonetechno
gy.com (mailto:kel...@backbonetechnology.com)
> > >
> > > address: 55 East 7th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5T 1M4
> > > tel: +1 604 713 8560 ext:114
> > > fax: +1 604 605 0964
> > > skype: kelcey.damage
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
r, BC, V5T 1M4
> > tel: +1 604 713 8560 ext:114
> > fax: +1 604 605 0964
> > skype: kelcey.damage
> >
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Alex Heneveld [mailto:alex.henev...@cloudsoftcorp.com]
> > > Sent: Wednes
09, 2013 4:39 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > (mailto:cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org)
> > Cc: Min Chen
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PaaS Enablement: Composite Application Blueprints
> > (#576)
> >
> >
> > Hi Min, Jie,
> >
anuary 09, 2013 4:39 PM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Cc: Min Chen
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PaaS Enablement: Composite Application Blueprints
>(#576)
>
>
>Hi Min, Jie,
>
>Min, nice questions. I've given my answers in-line.
>
>Jie, my answers also res
Thanks a lot for your clarifications, Alex. Regarding language, personally
I am not in favor of YAML, although YAML gets rid of curly braces and
quotes, correct indentation required by YAML is also annoying to users.
-min
On 1/9/13 4:39 PM, "Alex Heneveld" wrote:
>
>Hi Min, Jie,
>
>Min, nice qu
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Alex Heneveld
wrote:
> Wow JSON seems popular so far. And yet YAML is more concise and expressive.
> Designed to be easy for people to read and write configuration just like
> this. Whereas JSON is designed for serializing objects, in a way that isn't
> too hard f
Hi Min, Jie,
Min, nice questions. I've given my answers in-line.
Jie, my answers also respond to some of your points, re TOSCA and YAML/JSON.
On 08/01/2013 17:50, Min Chen wrote:
+1 on this feature to extend CloudStack from pure IaaS to PaaS or SaaS
area. Some questions in my mind:
1) Does
ve format for CloudStack. But I don't have much
> experience with TOSCA. So love to hear others' opinion.
>
> Jie
>
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: Min Chen [mailto:min.c...@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:51 AM
> > To: cloudstack
January 08, 2013 9:51 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PaaS Enablement: Composite Application Blueprints
> (#576)
>
> +1 on this feature to extend CloudStack from pure IaaS to PaaS or SaaS
> area. Some questions in my mind:
>
> 1) Does
+1 on this feature to extend CloudStack from pure IaaS to PaaS or SaaS
area. Some questions in my mind:
1) Does your proposed blueprint only contain functional component
description or contain both functional and deployment aspects? For
example, for a 3-tier app containing three functional compone
Alex/All
+1 to phasing this and starting with core proposal that is deliverable in
Q1.
Best
Duncan
On 8 January 2013 14:34, Alex Heneveld wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the comments and support so far! Great to have so much
> interest and especially so many volunteers.
>
> Some of the main points
Thanks for all the comments and support so far! Great to have so much
interest and especially so many volunteers.
Some of the main points in my mind, on the discussion so far:
*"A new unit of deployment"* is a perfect description of this, Chris.
And +1 to once it is deployed mapping it on
Big +1
I would also take the chance mentioning that I would like to help coding
wise and planning also if/when possible
Allow me to take this thread one step further and say that I can see at
least an initial consensus if not a good enough one to start taking it into
a one or more separate thread
+1 to the feature.
This will definitely help in doing initial application prototype and testing on
a test cloud and once everything is tuned up properly the application can be
exported as a package and imported to a production cloud and with minimal
configuration changes should be up and running
+1 on breaking it up into blueprinting and guest tools.
+1 on AWS CloudFormation compatibility
+1 on removing PAAS from the discussion.
On 1/7/13 5:51 PM, "Raj Subrahmanian" wrote:
>+1 to the feature and also
>+1 to Chris' suggestion that it be split out into two sub-projects.
>Raj
>
>On Mon, Ja
+1 to the feature and also
+1 to Chris' suggestion that it be split out into two sub-projects.
Raj
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Chris Sears wrote:
> This sounds like there a two major features wrapped up here that deserve to
> be broken out and discussed individually.
>
> 1. A new unit of depl
+1 on this feature.
Some questions:
- Are you expecting to develop a new format for describing the app or reuse
cloudformation and/or vapps?
- This can be quite large, is there any plan to phase in the feature set?
Love to help when it's more defined.
--Alex
> -Original Message-
> From
y 07, 2013 12:32 PM
>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] PaaS Enablement: Composite Application Blueprints
>(#576)
>
>This sounds like there a two major features wrapped up here that deserve to
>be broken out and discussed individually.
>
>1. A new
This sounds like there a two major features wrapped up here that deserve to
be broken out and discussed individually.
1. A new unit of deployment similar to a VMware vApp or AWS CloudFormation
template. This unit would have an abstract representation
(blueprint/template) and a deployed instance re
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Alex Heneveld
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> At the CCC, and in jira [1] late last year, we started discussing this
> feature request, but going foward we'd
> like to get broader feedback. A couple folks have suggested we bring it
> back to the mailing list to get this.
>
30 matches
Mail list logo
