taverna-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nadeesh Dilanga <nadeesh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Docker Activity Plugin Enhancements
Date Wed, 10 Aug 2016 01:18:43 GMT
I have updated the JIRA [1] with the user guide which has screen captures
on understanding docker activity plugin.
Please let me know your thoughts, so that I can improve it and update it.

[1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAVERNA-901

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Nadeesh Dilanga <nadeesh092@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ok, understood.
> Then it appears I can do only one check. That is, "create container"
> only(even though I have already written utilities to validate all other
> operations). Ex: In create container we check whether there is already
> existing container with same name. On the other hand, to start a containe
> by name, we check whether there is a container created (and NOT running)
> with the same name.
>
> So with this it is clear we can only do one check in this health check.  I
> also went through the WSDL health check implementation. Will send out a
> pull request soon with the docker health check..
>
> I am also composed a doc on understand docker activity plugin with the
> help of unit tests. I will create a PDF and attach to the gsoc docker
> public JIRA. Hope that is ok ? Otherwise please let me know what I should
> be doing.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Alan Williams <alaninmcr@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 08-Aug-16 03:12, Nadeesh Dilanga wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alan,
>>> Thanks for the input.
>>> Yes you are very correct. Activity configuration has the information of
>>> the
>>> container. But what I meant more like is, what to do ? start/stop  etc.
>>> For
>>> Health check, the interface taverna already given apparently does not
>>> expect to check those individual entities separately. But more like check
>>> whether create/start/inspect (all possible activities) potentially
>>> healthy
>>> to execute as a whole. Is that correct ?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> An alternative would be to have sub-classes of DockerActivity, such as
>> StartDockerActivity, and to have corresponding sub-classes of
>> DockerConfiguration. I think for the GSOC work that this would be
>> "overkill" and can be left for a future version 2 :)
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message