[almighty] Major Architectural Question for the Build

[Andrew Lee Rubinger]

It's a fair point.  Will talk it over with Todd.

By the way, using the "Deployment" model you can delegate to the "Consumer"
one like an adaptor.  Don't underestimate the power of Another Level of
Indirection. :)

On Nov 2, 2016 9:15 AM, "Michael Kleinhenz" <kleinhenz at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> preliminary notice: I can live with any of the solutions, I see
> advantages and problems with both.
>
> Maybe I have done too much sales on such stuff, but I think the
> "Consumer Model" will be a major roadblock in actually convincing
> people to support us. This model will require lots of effort, changes
> to their live system and/or deployment and operations(!) to support
> integrating with us. In my experience especially the last one,
> operations, is a real blocker for 3rd parties. Just my 0.02€ on real
> world adoption of products in the corporate world..
>
> I think our way of approaching that question is way to technical and
> not enough sales. (I am feeling dirty that I have said that :-)
>
> But anyway, again: if we decide for the consumer style model, thats
> fine for me, I just want to say that there might be another, non-tech,
> view on that.
>
> -- Michael
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Andrew Lee Rubinger <alr at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > Gave some time to think this through. :)  Appreciate the thoughts
> Michael,
> > because I think your email here has redirected our line of thinking into
> > something better than originally designed.
> >
> > To me, the most important issues this thread has vetted are:
> >
> > 1) Encouraging extension of Almighty through new providers
> > 2) Security
> >
> > Now, I had been initially conceiving something akin to what Michael is
> > calling the "Deployment" model; an interface that providers implement.
> On
> > further reflection I've come to find the REST-based approach outlined as
> the
> > "Consumer" model accomplishes all of our goals and better handles the two
> > points above.
> >
> > For 1), we let users register their own service, running *somewhere*, to
> be
> > written in whatever language and execution environment they decide.  This
> > imposes on providers writers the burden of deploying their thing instead
> of
> > deploying it into Almighty, but, as 2) shows, this is a good thing.
> >
> > The security constraints of 2) really say that we will absolutely not run
> > untrusted code in our online service offering.  Initially I'd thought
> that
> > anyone who wants to write their own providers could be on their own to
> host
> > an Almighty instance as well, but by making the provider model a firewall
> > where untrusted code runs externally to Almighty, we could be opening
> > ourselves off to safe extensibility or community-driven extensions in the
> > future.  While this is not a requirement for our first launch, it's
> > definitely the kind of thing Todd envisions for us going forward.
> >
> > TL;DR for me now: a REST-based extension SPI model, and registration
> > mechanism with Almighty core which sets that up.  Will look forward to
> > seeing those designs.
> >
> > S,
> > ALR
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Tomas Nozicka <tnozicka at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Pete,
> >>
> >> (see inline)
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 13:15 -0400, Pete Muir wrote:
> >> > This reminded me of the VS Code/LSP architecture. In this
> >> > architecture there are a number of proceses running:
> >> >
> >> > 1) The VS Code tool
> >> > 2) A server which can control and talk to any LSP implementation via
> >> > a socket or REST or other transport protocol
> >> > 3) The LSP implementation(s) written in the language of choice,
> >> > talking a JSON protocol
> >> I like the separation and implementation language independence.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > This is closest to the the Consumer model that Michael describes, but
> >> > I think we could also look at also being able to run the plugin (and
> >> > the thing it connects to) on our servers, but using transports other
> >> > than HTTP (e.g. sockets).
> >> I am not opposing the idea, but would you mind laying out some story
> >> why it would be useful?
> >>
> >> From my point of view vendors can run such service on OpenShift Online
> >> or any other server (or cloud).
> >>
> >> Even we were (are) planing to run OSBP on different server using
> >> HTTPS.
> >>
> >> I don't see the use case for supporting sockets (or similar mechanisms)
> >> especially when Almighty will be running in the cloud; if such
> >> mechanism could even work there.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I don't think allowing people to write scripts that execute inside
> >> > our processes is a good idea.
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Tomas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Red Hat Developer Group Architecture
> > @ALRubinger
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Kleinhenz
> Principal Software Engineer
>
> Red Hat Deutschland GmbH
> Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 14
> 85630 Grasbrunn
> Germany
>
> RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.
> Red Hat GmbH, www.de.redhat.com,
> Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht München,
> HRB 153243,
> Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham,
> Michael O'Neill
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/almighty-public/attachments/20161102/80b61960/attachment.htm>