9:33 a.m.
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(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development"
> > <hawkular-dev(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
_______________________________________________
hawkular-dev mailing list
hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev