[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [equinox-dev] [prov] Ruminations on IDirector vs. ProvisioningHelper-like entity
|
It seems that you are touching on two separate issues: one being
interaction with the user, the other being director / engine interaction
and both are really different problems
For the user interaction pb here are some additional questions / notes:
- Why would you want to describe to the user the list of operations that
are being sent to the engine. To me this is an implementation detail that
the user may not be able to make sense of?
How detailed should that list be?
What could the user do with it?
What do you mean by impact when you say "impact of performing a given
operation would be prior to actually having the user perform it"?
If the goal is to tell the user, IU1 will be installed, IU2 be uninstalled,
and UI2 will be updated, then I would not see that fit on the director, but
rather in some kind of "oracle" / planner giving something meaningful to
the end user.
The handling of installation versus update would be determined by the
director based on the presence of an IU inside the profile, and what the
user has selected to "add" to its profile. Of course if we go with a model
where we have an oracle, then it has to be able to determine that too.
For the director / engine interaction here are some notes:
- The Engine is API and one could decide to directly invoke it.
- Currently the director is really simplistic and is far from being
complete. Also this implementation is not opened and it is normal that you
don't see what you are looking for.
- When Jeff says no change to the director, he refers to the fact that the
director could be reused on the server (maybe after some refactoring of the
current code) but he does not exclude the presence of a "proxy director" on
the client. For example one could imagine that on the server there would be
a full blown director and an Engine. This Engine would be a proxy engine
whose responsibility would be to send back actual commands to the engine
running on the client. Therefore the flow would go as follow:
- the proxy director on the client is invoked for installation
- it contacts the director on the server which generates the list of
instructions,
- the list of instructions is given to the server engine which streams
those to the engine
- this client engine receives the instructions and executes them. In this
case the communication client / server is an implementation detail of your
client.
- In the previous description, the proxy director could be aware of a local
director to fallback on when running in disconnected mode.
- Other pieces of the agent infrastructure are expected to be pluggable
such as local stores, registries, etc.
HTH
PaScaL
"Tim Webb"
<tim@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: To
equinox-dev-bounc "Equinox development mailing list"
es@xxxxxxxxxxx <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Maya development mailing list
08/14/2007 02:55 <maya-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
PM Subject
[equinox-dev] [prov] Ruminations on
IDirector vs.
Please respond to ProvisioningHelper-like entity
Equinox
development
mailing list
<equinox-dev@ecli
pse.org>
Bare with me -- a few issues to get through...
Currently the IDirector interface has two methods : install and uninstall.
In looking through the code of ProvisioningHelper and IDirector
(SimpleDirector) I'm not sure as to the right way to describe to the user
the series of operations that would be performed in installing software X
prior to actually initiating the installation. I could duplicate similar
code to what is found in SimpleDirector using the ProfileInstallRegistry
and DependencyExpander to determine what would be required -- however, this
seems to be duplicating a significant amount of logic. Would it make sense
to add to IDirector a call that would expand a given set of installRoots to
the series of ProvisioningOperands that would be required? Such as...
interface IDirector
{
....
public IStatus describeInstall(InstallableUnit[] installRoots, Profile
profile, ProvisioningOperandCollection operands, IProgressMonitor monitor);
public IStatus describeUninstall(InstallableUnit[] uninstallRoots,
Profile profile, ProvisioningOperandCollection operands, IProgressMonitor
monitor);
}
Separately, who would be responsible for determining an upgrade vs. install
operation? The current implementations of SimpleDirector and
NewSimpleDirector seem to assume that the software is an install. Is it
safe to assume that with time the default IDirector implementation will be
able to handle determining when an Update should be performed instead of an
Install?
As it turns out, in potentially using the Director server-side in Maya, we
need to be able to return the operations that need to be performed back to
the client. In addition, we may wish to show to the user what the impact
of performing a given operation would be prior to actually having the user
perform it. In discussions with Jeff I understand that it is preferred to
leave the current director implementation in-tact without requiring each
way it is consumed to implement a new director. Given this desire, we're
going to want to find a way to encode the operations to be performed into
an XML description to deliver back to the client. To accomplish this, we
will need a way of describing the operations to be performed and then have
a way to encode / decode them.
Approaching the issue another way, in the best case usage, the Maya
provisioning client connects to the server exactly once. It requests the
instructions to be used in ensuring it has the right software. If we were
to attempt to switch the IDirector to be behind an RPC-type facade, we will
need at least two connections to the server -- one to get the list of
InstallRoots and a second to tell the Director to install. Currently, we
couldn't do this since the IDirector assumes it knows where the engine is
-- passing the engine in as a parameter would help allowing the director to
be remote from the executing engine. Next, in some situations the user in
a Maya installation may wish to install software locally. Depending on the
policy / governance configuration, I could imagine this operation being
performed without contacting the server - requiring a functioning local
director, however, for some deployments you may need to contact the server
to determine if you are allowed to perform the requested task. In this
mode, having the IDirector as an RPC may be required. The exact policy
might even be based on what the requested install actually entails.
Assuming all of this is makes some sense, how would you avoid having to
reimpement the IDirector implementation? One option would be to have a
GovernanceAwareProxyDirector (I know, horrible name), that would be able to
decide if it just defers to the standard local Director implementation or
leverages the server-side Director to determine the operations to be
performed. When it contacts the server-side director, it might receive
back a serialized form of the provisioning operands. Using this list of
operands, it could then directly contact the local engine or potentially
call the standard simple director assuming it had another function such as:
interface IDirector
{
....
public IStatus executeOperands(IAdaptable operands, IProgressMonitor
monitor);
}
Now I don't suggest adding such an operation is an ideal solution -- but I
am curious if we want to expose to someone other than the director direct
access to the engine. If not, then I'm struggling a bit in how to best
balance the needs of a hybrid deployment where you sometimes use a local
director and then occasionally have to call out to a remote director.
As I write this all out, the more I feel that the entity running on the
server is potentially not a standard Director but is Director-like. I like
the idea of keeping a local director always running even when deferring
some operations to a server-side component to augment the processing. The
benefit to always having the client-side director is that it can ensure
consistency of the local system for instance when there is software
installed locally that is not tracked by the central server -- the
server-side resolution would check software within it's domain are
correctly configured for the client including executing various policy
decisions but the client-side director would handle resolution to determine
if the software not known to the central server is still valid.
Phew.
Tim_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
