On 10/29/2013 09:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:46 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> On 10/28/2013 01:29 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> This was my thinking, I thought the cloud WG is about building lean
>> images that do not have much in the way of wizards, installers, and
>> hand-holding software, but are focused toward rapid deployment, either
>> as lean hosts or as computing/elastic guests, all controlled via some
>> configuration engine like puppet etc... basically single task machines.
>> I see the server WG more about building heavier, long term, multipurpose
>> servers (be it on bare metal or as guest).
> I would disagree I would say single purpose servers/vm/containers all fall
> under the server WG as well but I think we should be looking at this from
> application stand point as in which of those services/daemon fall under the
> server WG and that means we could make up to about 500 550 applications or
> "products" that can be deployed on bare metal in vm's or containers we
> be delivering.
I think it would make most sense for Cloud and Server to "share
applications", i.e. the same application package can be deployed
either within a single-purpose Cloud image (automatically managed for
horizontal scaling), or as a single instance within a Server (one of
many applications running on this particular Server).
We see things quite differently here I look at a server servicing one or
more server application ( including hosting the cloud ) and the cloud
first foremost a deliver method of server application.
So we ( as in the server WG ) handle all the server applications and the
solution surrounding that while the cloud WG handles the deliverable and
the configuration aspect of the server applications.
Given that, I think the Server WG should indeed choose a very limited
set of "applications" / "services" to include within the Server
product and to make management of this limited set of services really