[Devtools] [Container-tools] Prepackaged OpenShift template with CDK

[Clayton Coleman]

Please don't rename templates in CDK - we're going to have a big
enough supportability problem without them diverging.  Fixes to
resources should be happening in OpenShift - identify issues, we'll
escalate and resolve them.  Having templates be different in multiple
places is going to cause more problems, not less.

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Hardy Ferentschik <hferents at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> >Another thing is that we still have builders for Python, Ruby and Perl showing up. Maybe
>> >not such a bad thing, but it was not in the list we initially defined. The reason for this is
>> >that we import the RHEL 7 image stream un-modified. I think we really need to take control
>> >over this and hand-roll our own streams and templates.
>>
>> We had thought about whether to include the different image streams and
>> decided in-favor of them because we want to facilitate developers
>> create/run/experiment applications in the OpenShift with different runtime.
>
> Sure, in fact the Ruby, Perl and Python look good, the names reflect different versions of
> these languages. A user can decide which builder to use, depending on his
> preferred version of the language. But why add 'latest' here?
>
>> IMO It is fine to ship a limited set of working examples as part of CDK but
>> it is also very important that developers should be able to develop
>> applications on top of OpenShift shipped through CDK and for that to happen
>> we need the image streams for programming languages (e.g. Ruby, nodejs,
>> Python, PHP), Wildfly, mysql, mongodb etc to be available.
>
> I think I am more concerned about the XPaaS ones. The naming is not consistent. Why is the
> builder image called jboss-eap64-openshift and why can I see two version of it (1.1 and 1.2).
> As a user, which one do I choose? Note, these are builder images which is not made explicit
> in the name. If you are lucky you notice the different icon at the end.
> The the EAP app template is called 'eap64-mysql-persistent-s2i', also not a good name.
> And while on it, why no prefix 'jboss'?
>
> Do you see where I am coming from? I am not saying that this is not going to work, I am
> just saying we are not sending clear messages. We potentially confuse the user.
> For everything we do, we should not only think about: "Does it work?", we should also
> put our users glasses on and think:"How is a user who does not work day in day out
> with this stuff going to perceive this".
>
> I believe we have also an upstream issue here on how various parts of the organisation
> package and deliver image streams and templates. Until we have a way to improve
> upstream, I think our best option is to handroll these resources for the CDK.
> Providing a consistent set of builder images and templates with easy to understand names.
> Here is an opportunity for the CDK to shine and add some actual more value to the user, by
> sorting out the chaos around resources which exits atm.
>
> --Hardy
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >That said, I am not sure whether there is still time to do much about the imported resources.
>> >Maybe we just need to fly with what we have, even though imo it is a bit confusing to the users.
>> >
>> >At least the EAP issue should be investigated though.
>> >
>> >--Hardy
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >----- End forwarded message -----
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Devtools mailing list
>> >Devtools at redhat.com
>> >https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Devtools mailing list
>> Devtools at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devtools mailing list
> Devtools at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools
>