Re: Some semi-architectural things to think about

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Michael DeHaan wrote:
Jesus M. Rodriguez wrote:
Michael DeHaan wrote:
Michael DeHaan wrote:
So, continuing from FudCON's hackfest ideas, I think these are the biggies in terms of "func core" kind of stuff to get done. Thoughts? I've added the missing ones to the ideas page. There are a lot of other expansion/module ideas, but this is probably the (larger) stuff that is perhaps missing. However some of it is pretty much optional too.

* minion-to-minion + ACLs (and of course docs on how to do this) .... a really neat feature

* multiple-overlords/cert-sharing ... seemed to be requested a lot at talk

* overlord-delegation (for network reasons, but also maybe efficiency.... there's a government app that basically did a tree like fan-out for this).

* figuring out how to loosen up the permissions of caller (making sure things are accessible by TurboGears if it opens up a Client() object). Currently it just needs the /etc/pki/func and /var/lib/func stuff. This is probably not too much of a problem but worth talking about.
I do not think we should do it TWICE one for webui and one for client.
It should be done in a way that the ui and client can easily make use
of it.

* Groups? We had talked about doing this in the WebUI and CLI seperately but we could perhaps actually make it part of the Func client API seperately and save a local DB so that could be shared? Thoughts?
By DB, I mean of course something like bsddb or even a config file, not an actual DB :)
Hrm. Is the config enough? How small are these groups? If we go with
a DB, anything that SQLAlchemy can use would be fine with me. That way
when func gets big and needs a REAL DB it would be easier to switch
and not have to gut a lot of code.

* .... whatever else I'm forgetting

Ideas page being kept updated here: https://fedorahosted.org/func/wiki/IdeasForFunc .. I've removed some of the things we've gotten done, if you finish something up, feel free to remove it.
Wrt to "more support for buildbot / mock / make Func a killer build tool"
Um seriously?  Don't we already have enough build tools :)


Yes, very seriously.

Func is very nice for intramachine communication and if you are building an internal build system, that's nice to have to signal things when they are done and need to do other things.

Fedora Infra is actually quite interested in Func for this purpose.

It's a secure intra-machine conduit, with some nice multi-machine capabilities... so for build comm it's a fairly easy thing to do and lots of people have to build their own build infrastructure -- would be nice to help those out.

It's not what I'll be concentrating on, but for those that want to do build systems, it's a good fit.



Ah, I see. Didn't think of it that way. Would it be a buildsystem
that *uses* func or would the buildsystem be built into func.
Seems to me I would see func as more a "core" of these bigger
systems.  Either way, sounds reasonable.

--
jesus m. rodriguez     | jesusr@xxxxxxxxxx
sr. software engineer  | irc: zeus
red hat network        | 919.754.4413 x44413
+-------------------------------------------+
|  "Those who cannot learn from history     |
|   are doomed to repeat it."               |
|                       -- George Santayana |
+-------------------------------------------+

_______________________________________________
Func-list mailing list
Func-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/func-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Linux Networking]     [Fedora Legacy List]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux