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
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).
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