[Hawkular-dev] Business app/services representation in Inventory

[Gary Brown]

Ok thanks for the info. 

Just to be clear - so as components are dynamically deployed/undeployed from a server, these should be reflected in the Inventory - so it represents a current view of the environment being managed?

Are there any plans to represent docker images in Inventory, associated with the servers that have been launched using them?

Regards
Gary

----- Original Message -----
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Brown" <gbrown at redhat.com>
> > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development"
> > <hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 31 March, 2015 10:37:53 AM
> > Subject: [Hawkular-dev] Business app/services representation in Inventory
> > 
> > Hi
> > 
> > Before going too far down the BTM road, I just wanted to confirm whether or
> > not we want the business app, their components services, and their
> > relationships to IT resources they use, stored in Hawkular Inventory?
> > 
> 
> Inventory definitely is the right place to store such information.
> 
> > An alternative approach would be to derive the structure and relationships
> > dynamically from the business transaction instance information.
> > 
> 
> Deriving the structure and relationships dynamically is basically
> a "discovery" as called in ye olde RHQ days. That is a capability
> which we'd very much like to keep.
> 
> The new inventory is (so far) unaware of special "discovery" step -
> everything
> from resource creation to establishing relationships is done through 1 public
> API that "anyone" can use.
> 
> > The benefit of storing in Inventory is it enables end users to navigate
> > through the inventory to understand the relationships to the business
> > apps/services, as well as allow other tooling (e.g. impact analysis) to
> > determine the effect of IT resource downtime on business apps.
> >
> 
> +1. I know Brett will object that that's what Artificer is for, too, but I
> personally see the difference in Inventory's focus on relationships, while
> Artificer is more geared towards managing content.
>  
> > Thoughts?
> > 
> > Regards
> > Gary
> > _______________________________________________
> > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>