On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 09:51 -0400, Hugh Brock wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 05:53:17AM -0400, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> On 07/24/11 - 02:44:33PM, Hugh Brock wrote:
> > * API
> > * We've been saying for a very long time that we need a real API for
> > managing Conductor and for doing instance stuff in Conductor. If
> > we admit that we have to manage instances that are not part of
> > deployments, then we can also just say that the Deltacloud API we
> > expose only works for instances. I think this is good enough for
> > the next release.
> I'm still not convinced that the deltacloud API is the right thing to be
> slapping on the front of the conductor. But in any case we should definitely
> put some sort of API on it.
Mark's proposed solution to this is to move the multi-instance
deployable handling out of Conductor altogether and into the
Orchestrator app. We're still debating whether that's a good idea or
Well, I think we could do that and perhaps we should have done that, at
least until the concept has proven itself. But whether it's the right
thing to do now is another question.
I'm assuming that we will wind up keeping deployables in Conductor, but
that we should still split as much of the deployables implementation as
possible out of Conductor and use it in a simple stateless API/UI Audrey
As for deltacloud API - I do think that single-instance launch-an-image
functionality belongs in Conductor's UI and that the API we should
expose this with is the deltacloud API.