local provider

[Tim Penhey]

On 13/12/14 08:54, Curtis Hovey-Canonical wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Kapil Thangavelu
> <kapil.thangavelu at canonical.com> wrote:
> 
>> first as you say its people first experience with juju and the way its
>> deployment usage fits very well with some folks production needs ( ie. i
>> have a  big machine in the corner and juju can deploy workloads on it). I
>> think the issue primarily is that of implementation, and the mindset among
>> developers/implementers that we don't support it.
>>
>> Most of the reasons why its different on an implementation level disappear
>> with lxd, at which point we should support it for dev and prod.
> 
> Do you mean local-provider would be less devel/demo if the
> state-server was place in a container (machine-0) instead of co-opting
> localhost to be machine-0?

Yes, I think it would.  People could always add routing rules themselves
to particular components.

Tim