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

[Lukas Krejci]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 08:53:35 Gary Brown wrote:
> 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?
> 

There are plans to only have a core set of predefined relationship types that 
define most basic concepts (along with semantics) like "contains", "defines", 
etc. and a couple of data types:

* tenant
* environment (these two just to model the common structure of infrastructure)
* resource type
* metric type (metadata about resources or metrics, optional)
* resource
* metric

On top of the predefined relationship types, the user is free to create any 
another relationship between any 2 entities. The semantics of those will be in 
the hand of the user.
 
All will be dynamically creatable and amendable so if you wish to create a 
resource representing a docker image, go ahead.

Things will probably get a little bit more complicated at the UI level for how 
to represent things but data model wise, we won't care what the inventory 
stores.

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev