Mailing-List: contact user-help@bigtop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@bigtop.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 01:19:05 +0000
From: Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
To: user@bigtop.apache.org
Subject: Re: BIGTOP-1x branch.. Do we need multitenancy systems?
Message-ID: <20150211011905.GC4732@boudnik.org>
References: 
 <CACVCA=f6WOiC8sakL66FuTSTn6QV5D1ZpFmXiMesxNnts=J2yQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACVCA=f6WOiC8sakL66FuTSTn6QV5D1ZpFmXiMesxNnts=J2yQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

I think betting it all on an over-night shift to microservices might be a bit
too risky. Also, I don't see how packages are opposite to the containers?

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:44AM, jay vyas wrote:
> Hi bigtop.  Just a thought... (Thanks @rnowling for providing a seed for
> this discussion this morning)
> 
> In BigTop 1x (the experimental branch) we have a chance to do things
> radically different.
> 
> - How long are we planning on actually running bigtop on multitenant
> systems Months or years?
> - I we move towards individual processes/microservices/containers, who will
> be consuming our  RPM/DEB packages ?
> 
> ...If nobody... then bigtop 1x could purely focus on nothing other than
> - integration testing,
> - cutting edge deployment, and
> - puppet recipes
> 
> without worrying at all about packaging details.  There are tools for DNS
> for  containers and so on.
> 
> 
> -- 
> jay vyas