----- Original Message -----
On 06/08/2012 09:24 AM, Hugh O. Brock wrote:
>
> Yeah. We have to do this -- it's a blindingly obvious way to
> generate
> community interest and a real benefit for users.
>
> I've asked Francesco to head up the effort of getting the thing
> built. We can host it on the Redmine machine for now -- if it gets
> bogged down with too many users, well, that goes in the category of
> problems we'd like to have.
>
> Andy Fitz, can you help with the design? I'll then appoint someone
> to
> help Francesco get it coded up.
>
> Good stuff...
>
> --Hugh
>
I agree with everyone else here -- it is an excellent idea. It will
require one change to the deployable definition (and possibly a
related
change to the image model) that we've discussed in the past -- this
may
be the actual motivator to get it done. Currently deployables
reference
image by UUID, which makes them completely un-shareable. For this to
work we need to change the deployable definition to allow referencing
images by name. Since we're sharing deployables with templates, it's
actually template name we'd want to use.
It might be quite interesting to be able to refer to template via a url (real or not for
now).
There are a bunch of implementation edge cases to work through here
--
since it's valid to use the same template more than once -- i.e. more
than one image that happen to use the same template, the template
name
will not uniquely identify an image. When you take a set of
templates+deployables that were shared and import/build/push the
templates and then import the deployables, you could end up with a
situation where a deployable identifies a template/image by a name
that
maps to more than one image in the system -- either because the same
template has been used more than once, or because there are multiple
templates that happen to have the same name. We'll have to come up
with
some way to resolve this, but the answer isn't obvious to me at this
time.
Scott