Charming with Resources

[Charles Butler]

https://github.com/juju-solutions/kubernetes/blob/master-node-split/cluster/juju/layers/kubernetes-worker/reactive/kubernetes_worker.py#L70-L74

Seems like an applicable code-first way to solve this.  Matt and I have
been discussing extracting these common bits of code and contributing back
to charmhelpers when using resources so there are established patterns on
how to address this issue. LIke set a common threshold on fillesize when
invoking resource_get

resource_get('mything', min_bytes='1000000')

which would block on a sub 1MB resource and return. Leaving
control/execution state manipulation to the charmer to handle, but still
handled all the same.

Any thoughts on this? or am I running down the same hallway with the same
hammer looking for nails?

All the best,

Charles


On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:06 AM Rick Harding <rick.harding at canonical.com>
wrote:

> We didn't do an original 0byte resource because that's almost promised to
> fail. The thought was, in order to publish the charm into the store then
> you need some minimal resource that the charm will accept. If it's a django
> charm, a hello world application; if a file server, a demo image; etc. Just
> having a 0byte charm means the deploy is probably going to come up in some
> awkward error state that the end user has to track down "why did this fail"
> vs something obvious and documented.
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:59 AM Charles Butler <
> charles.butler at canonical.com> wrote:
>
>> TL;DR - would it be helpful to just initialize every resource stream, at
>> index 0, a zero byte resource?  This aids users who are publishing charms
>> with copyrighted bins, or proprietary components. And give an immediately
>> publishable resource for streams.
>>
>>
>> It occurred to me this week while we were revving through the kubernetes
>> publication process, that on initial publish its best to have zero byte
>> resources at index 0. So its easy to remember - "man which resource was the
>> zero byte one?" it just corresponds to 0.
>>
>> Instead of having users touch, gzip, etc a null resource, would it be
>> feasible to make the charm store have this convention by default? Every
>> charm that declares a resource, that resource, in turn gets a resource-0
>> allocated for zero byte, freeing the publisher of the charm to use the
>> provided null resource?  seems like a better UX than asking the user to
>> jump through hoops of say:
>>
>> touch null && gzip null && charm attach mycharm big-resource=null.gz
>>
>> There's likely a reason we didn't do this by default and I'm interested
>> in hearing it. However, I'm more interested in finding out if we can
>> streamline resource publication for our vendors and community.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Charles
>> --
>> Juju Charmer
>> Canonical Group Ltd.
>> Ubuntu - Linux for human beings | www.ubuntu.com
>> Juju - The fastest way to model your application | www.jujucharms.com
>>
> --
>> Juju mailing list
>> Juju at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
>>
> --
Juju Charmer
Canonical Group Ltd.
Ubuntu - Linux for human beings | www.ubuntu.com
Juju - The fastest way to model your application | www.jujucharms.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/juju/attachments/20160929/45adde8c/attachment.html>