Focus for the next three weeks

[Tim Penhey]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/09/13 02:33, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> ...
> 
>>> Right now we don't have a way to restrict the users creating 
>>> containers that they cannot address.  I propose that we add a 
>>> method to the environment interface that is
>>> SupportsContainers() bool.  This can then be used to stop
>>> people at least creating containers that they can't use.
>>> 
>>> This I think we need to do in the next three weeks, and make 
>>> sure the add-machine and deployment commands respect whether 
>>> containers are supported or not.  Currently the only provider 
>>> that actually supports containers is MAAS.
>>> 
>>> Next I think we should have SupportedContainers() on a machine.
>>>  Different machines can support different containers.  However 
>>> I'm not sure we should do this in the next three weeks, so
>>> will be the focus of a different email.
> 
> I don't see a big gain in having the bool before the list. You can 
> treat an empty list as false, and only allow "LXC" for phase one,
> and then you don't have to implement 2 APIs.

The problem here is that there are two fundamentally different things:

1) Is the provider capable of providing addressing for containers at all.

2) Is this machine capable of creating containers.


Even for the first question, it may depend on internal interrogation
once the bootstrap node is up.  EC2 may work if you have VPC,
OpenStack may work if you have neutron and API access to the right
functions.  This is likely to be determined at bootstrap time.

For the second point, Juju may well support multiple types of
containers. Individual machines may be limited in their support based
on series or hardware characteristics.

Tim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlIvpN8ACgkQd1fvI4G7WRANIACfeTxusHNmyypVwVlJ6D0MhFHj
DWYAoITGqZJSNE3m6hRORWKLoInxSLsT
=70yy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----