On 09/28/2011 08:49 AM, Michael D Day wrote:
board-bounces@ovirt.org wrote on 09/28/2011 05:44:56 AM:
my main concern is if this is going to be "the" policy engine for vdsm going forward, is if it shouldn't be established on something which is a rule based technology (say, pacemaker).
I think this is way too much speculation. I don't think anyone has proposed that MOM should be a general-purpose policy engine or that it should be "the" policy engine for VDSM.
I think the reason for the speculation is that we aren't being formal enough in our proposals. I think Fedora Features are a good model for making proposals like this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Proposals I'll work on some ovirt wiki pages for a similar project inclusion template this afternoon. Regards, Anthony Liguori In fact Adam pointed out that in some actual
deployments MOM is used discretely from VDSM and that is a concrete advantage of having a separate daemon. Further, redesigning the project or proposing a re-implementation on a different technology base is way beyond the discussion. In fact, that latter suggestion in particular is something that the MOM project should consider. The former (inclusion into VDSM) is something the VDSM project should consider.
+1
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Day IBM Distinguished Engineer Chief Virtualization Architect, Open Systems Development Cell: +1 919 371-8786 | mdday@us.ibm.com http://code.ncultra.org
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board