Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

Phil Brookes

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

Matthias Wessendorf
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

David Ffrench
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Red Hat Waterford

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

Wojciech Trocki
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Red Hat Waterford

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

Phil Brookes

Hey Wojciech,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting splitting this task in to two discrete pieces of work:

  • Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.
  • Add the —mobile flag to enable the Mobile-Core UI extension.

With the intention of making this an easier change to adopt.

If that is correct then I am happy to proceed this way and I can update the proposal to reflect this as a route to implementation.

Maybe it would be best to bring this discussion to the proposal so that the OpenShift team also have access to it?

Thanks,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Wojciech Trocki <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Red Hat Waterford

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki



_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

David Martin
I think there's great value in --mobile flag.
Its the same approach for metrics and logging (--metrics, --logging)

It would do everything needed to enable the mobile extension and get the cluster into the state we want.
Having to provide multiple flags would make it just that little more complex that it raises the barrier.

I do think there's upstream value in allowing configuring a default org for the broker though, but I don't think it should be part of this proposal.

On 12 January 2018 at 11:39, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Wojciech,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting splitting this task in to two discrete pieces of work:

  • Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.
  • Add the —mobile flag to enable the Mobile-Core UI extension.

With the intention of making this an easier change to adopt.

If that is correct then I am happy to proceed this way and I can update the proposal to reflect this as a route to implementation.

Maybe it would be best to bring this discussion to the proposal so that the OpenShift team also have access to it?

Thanks,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Wojciech Trocki <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Red Hat Waterford

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki





--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear)

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

Craig Brookes
+1

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:46 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think there's great value in --mobile flag.
Its the same approach for metrics and logging (--metrics, --logging)

It would do everything needed to enable the mobile extension and get the cluster into the state we want.
Having to provide multiple flags would make it just that little more complex that it raises the barrier.

I do think there's upstream value in allowing configuring a default org for the broker though, but I don't think it should be part of this proposal.

On 12 January 2018 at 11:39, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Wojciech,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting splitting this task in to two discrete pieces of work:

  • Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.
  • Add the —mobile flag to enable the Mobile-Core UI extension.

With the intention of making this an easier change to adopt.

If that is correct then I am happy to proceed this way and I can update the proposal to reflect this as a route to implementation.

Maybe it would be best to bring this discussion to the proposal so that the OpenShift team also have access to it?

Thanks,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Wojciech Trocki <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Red Hat Waterford

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki





--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear)



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

Phil Brookes

I’ve discussed this privately with Wojciech as I had misunderstood his suggestion, so here’s my attempt to clarify the discussion:

Rather than inserting our mobile oriented tasks into the upstream tool (oc), which doesn’t provide value to all users of that tool but rather only to the users who are interested in the mobile use-case; we should instead modify the tool so that it can accept addons, similar (ideally, identical) to minishift addons.

The proposal here would be something like:

oc cluster addons install mobilecore
oc cluster addons enable mobilecore
oc cluster up

There a few benefits to this solution:

  • There is a clear value-add to the upstream tool
  • We only need to maintain one mobilecore plugin for both minishift and oc cluster up
  • The barrier to entry for mobile developers is low
  • The process for setting up a local cluster is the same with both tools
  • Future changes to the setup process of the Mobile-Core can be submitted to our own repo

​@Wojciech please correct me, if I’ve still misunderstood anything!​

Regards,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:46 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think there's great value in --mobile flag.
Its the same approach for metrics and logging (--metrics, --logging)

It would do everything needed to enable the mobile extension and get the cluster into the state we want.
Having to provide multiple flags would make it just that little more complex that it raises the barrier.

I do think there's upstream value in allowing configuring a default org for the broker though, but I don't think it should be part of this proposal.

On 12 January 2018 at 11:39, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Wojciech,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting splitting this task in to two discrete pieces of work:

  • Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.
  • Add the —mobile flag to enable the Mobile-Core UI extension.

With the intention of making this an easier change to adopt.

If that is correct then I am happy to proceed this way and I can update the proposal to reflect this as a route to implementation.

Maybe it would be best to bring this discussion to the proposal so that the OpenShift team also have access to it?

Thanks,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Wojciech Trocki <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Red Hat Waterford

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki





--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear)



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

Matthias Wessendorf
In reply to this post by David Martin


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:46 PM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think there's great value in --mobile flag.
Its the same approach for metrics and logging (--metrics, --logging)

It would do everything needed to enable the mobile extension and get the cluster into the state we want.
Having to provide multiple flags would make it just that little more complex that it raises the barrier.

I do think there's upstream value in allowing configuring a default org for the broker though, but I don't think it should be part of this proposal.

+1 
 

On 12 January 2018 at 11:39, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Wojciech,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting splitting this task in to two discrete pieces of work:

  • Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.
  • Add the —mobile flag to enable the Mobile-Core UI extension.

With the intention of making this an easier change to adopt.

If that is correct then I am happy to proceed this way and I can update the proposal to reflect this as a route to implementation.

Maybe it would be best to bring this discussion to the proposal so that the OpenShift team also have access to it?

Thanks,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Wojciech Trocki <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Red Hat Waterford

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki





--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear)



--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

Matthias Wessendorf
In reply to this post by Phil Brookes
I'd actually prefer more --mobile - which than does exactly what we need 

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

I’ve discussed this privately with Wojciech as I had misunderstood his suggestion, so here’s my attempt to clarify the discussion:

Rather than inserting our mobile oriented tasks into the upstream tool (oc), which doesn’t provide value to all users of that tool but rather only to the users who are interested in the mobile use-case; we should instead modify the tool so that it can accept addons, similar (ideally, identical) to minishift addons.

The proposal here would be something like:

oc cluster addons install mobilecore
oc cluster addons enable mobilecore
oc cluster up

There a few benefits to this solution:

  • There is a clear value-add to the upstream tool
  • We only need to maintain one mobilecore plugin for both minishift and oc cluster up
  • The barrier to entry for mobile developers is low
  • The process for setting up a local cluster is the same with both tools
  • Future changes to the setup process of the Mobile-Core can be submitted to our own repo

​@Wojciech please correct me, if I’ve still misunderstood anything!​

Regards,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:46 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think there's great value in --mobile flag.
Its the same approach for metrics and logging (--metrics, --logging)

It would do everything needed to enable the mobile extension and get the cluster into the state we want.
Having to provide multiple flags would make it just that little more complex that it raises the barrier.

I do think there's upstream value in allowing configuring a default org for the broker though, but I don't think it should be part of this proposal.

On 12 January 2018 at 11:39, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Wojciech,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting splitting this task in to two discrete pieces of work:

  • Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.
  • Add the —mobile flag to enable the Mobile-Core UI extension.

With the intention of making this an easier change to adopt.

If that is correct then I am happy to proceed this way and I can update the proposal to reflect this as a route to implementation.

Maybe it would be best to bring this discussion to the proposal so that the OpenShift team also have access to it?

Thanks,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Wojciech Trocki <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Red Hat Waterford

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki





--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear)



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github




--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

John Frizelle
I agree with Wojciech - we are more likely to get the addon proposal accepted than the mobile specific one.

As a compromise, we could also propose adding support for a simple --addon=mobile as an alias to the addon install & enable commands, where the --foo flag is used to identify the name of the addon the install and enable

e..g. oc cluster up --addon=mobile would run the following commands:
oc cluster addons install mobile oc cluster addons enable mobile oc cluster up

and oc cluster up --addon=foobar would run the following commands:
oc cluster addons install foobar oc cluster addons enable foobar oc cluster up




--
John Frizelle
Chief Architect, Red Hat Mobile
Consulting Engineer

mobile: <a href="tel://+353872901644" target="_blank">+353 87 290 1644
twitter: @johnfriz
skype: john_frizelle




On 12 January 2018 at 12:06, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd actually prefer more --mobile - which than does exactly what we need 

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

I’ve discussed this privately with Wojciech as I had misunderstood his suggestion, so here’s my attempt to clarify the discussion:

Rather than inserting our mobile oriented tasks into the upstream tool (oc), which doesn’t provide value to all users of that tool but rather only to the users who are interested in the mobile use-case; we should instead modify the tool so that it can accept addons, similar (ideally, identical) to minishift addons.

The proposal here would be something like:

oc cluster addons install mobilecore
oc cluster addons enable mobilecore
oc cluster up

There a few benefits to this solution:

  • There is a clear value-add to the upstream tool
  • We only need to maintain one mobilecore plugin for both minishift and oc cluster up
  • The barrier to entry for mobile developers is low
  • The process for setting up a local cluster is the same with both tools
  • Future changes to the setup process of the Mobile-Core can be submitted to our own repo

​@Wojciech please correct me, if I’ve still misunderstood anything!​

Regards,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:46 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think there's great value in --mobile flag.
Its the same approach for metrics and logging (--metrics, --logging)

It would do everything needed to enable the mobile extension and get the cluster into the state we want.
Having to provide multiple flags would make it just that little more complex that it raises the barrier.

I do think there's upstream value in allowing configuring a default org for the broker though, but I don't think it should be part of this proposal.

On 12 January 2018 at 11:39, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Wojciech,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting splitting this task in to two discrete pieces of work:

  • Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.
  • Add the —mobile flag to enable the Mobile-Core UI extension.

With the intention of making this an easier change to adopt.

If that is correct then I am happy to proceed this way and I can update the proposal to reflect this as a route to implementation.

Maybe it would be best to bring this discussion to the proposal so that the OpenShift team also have access to it?

Thanks,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Wojciech Trocki <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Red Hat Waterford

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki





--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear)



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

Craig Brookes
In reply to this post by Matthias Wessendorf
While that is an interesting proposal around the addons, I would suggest waiting for the OpenShift team to get back on your issue. Adding a plugin structure to oc is likely a much bigger piece of work and need a lot more engagement from the OpenShift team. 
That doesn't mean a different proposal for this approach could not be made however, but rather that our current proposal covers our immediate need and has clear prior art.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd actually prefer more --mobile - which than does exactly what we need 

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

I’ve discussed this privately with Wojciech as I had misunderstood his suggestion, so here’s my attempt to clarify the discussion:

Rather than inserting our mobile oriented tasks into the upstream tool (oc), which doesn’t provide value to all users of that tool but rather only to the users who are interested in the mobile use-case; we should instead modify the tool so that it can accept addons, similar (ideally, identical) to minishift addons.

The proposal here would be something like:

oc cluster addons install mobilecore
oc cluster addons enable mobilecore
oc cluster up

There a few benefits to this solution:

  • There is a clear value-add to the upstream tool
  • We only need to maintain one mobilecore plugin for both minishift and oc cluster up
  • The barrier to entry for mobile developers is low
  • The process for setting up a local cluster is the same with both tools
  • Future changes to the setup process of the Mobile-Core can be submitted to our own repo

​@Wojciech please correct me, if I’ve still misunderstood anything!​

Regards,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:46 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think there's great value in --mobile flag.
Its the same approach for metrics and logging (--metrics, --logging)

It would do everything needed to enable the mobile extension and get the cluster into the state we want.
Having to provide multiple flags would make it just that little more complex that it raises the barrier.

I do think there's upstream value in allowing configuring a default org for the broker though, but I don't think it should be part of this proposal.

On 12 January 2018 at 11:39, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Wojciech,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting splitting this task in to two discrete pieces of work:

  • Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.
  • Add the —mobile flag to enable the Mobile-Core UI extension.

With the intention of making this an easier change to adopt.

If that is correct then I am happy to proceed this way and I can update the proposal to reflect this as a route to implementation.

Maybe it would be best to bring this discussion to the proposal so that the OpenShift team also have access to it?

Thanks,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Wojciech Trocki <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Red Hat Waterford

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki





--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear)



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github




--
Project lead AeroGear.org



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

John Frizelle
Good point Criag - let's see what the response to this request is before we look at an entire plugin ecosystem...

Question: does the minishift plugin offering lend itself in any way to being re-used or ported into the oc tool?

--
John Frizelle
Chief Architect, Red Hat Mobile
Consulting Engineer

mobile: <a href="tel://+353872901644" target="_blank">+353 87 290 1644
twitter: @johnfriz
skype: john_frizelle




On 12 January 2018 at 12:15, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
While that is an interesting proposal around the addons, I would suggest waiting for the OpenShift team to get back on your issue. Adding a plugin structure to oc is likely a much bigger piece of work and need a lot more engagement from the OpenShift team. 
That doesn't mean a different proposal for this approach could not be made however, but rather that our current proposal covers our immediate need and has clear prior art.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd actually prefer more --mobile - which than does exactly what we need 

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

I’ve discussed this privately with Wojciech as I had misunderstood his suggestion, so here’s my attempt to clarify the discussion:

Rather than inserting our mobile oriented tasks into the upstream tool (oc), which doesn’t provide value to all users of that tool but rather only to the users who are interested in the mobile use-case; we should instead modify the tool so that it can accept addons, similar (ideally, identical) to minishift addons.

The proposal here would be something like:

oc cluster addons install mobilecore
oc cluster addons enable mobilecore
oc cluster up

There a few benefits to this solution:

  • There is a clear value-add to the upstream tool
  • We only need to maintain one mobilecore plugin for both minishift and oc cluster up
  • The barrier to entry for mobile developers is low
  • The process for setting up a local cluster is the same with both tools
  • Future changes to the setup process of the Mobile-Core can be submitted to our own repo

​@Wojciech please correct me, if I’ve still misunderstood anything!​

Regards,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:46 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think there's great value in --mobile flag.
Its the same approach for metrics and logging (--metrics, --logging)

It would do everything needed to enable the mobile extension and get the cluster into the state we want.
Having to provide multiple flags would make it just that little more complex that it raises the barrier.

I do think there's upstream value in allowing configuring a default org for the broker though, but I don't think it should be part of this proposal.

On 12 January 2018 at 11:39, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Wojciech,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting splitting this task in to two discrete pieces of work:

  • Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.
  • Add the —mobile flag to enable the Mobile-Core UI extension.

With the intention of making this an easier change to adopt.

If that is correct then I am happy to proceed this way and I can update the proposal to reflect this as a route to implementation.

Maybe it would be best to bring this discussion to the proposal so that the OpenShift team also have access to it?

Thanks,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Wojciech Trocki <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Red Hat Waterford

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki





--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear)



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github




--
Project lead AeroGear.org



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

Matthias Wessendorf
In reply to this post by Craig Brookes
I was about to say, that I'd be not surprised if there is not that much interest in brining this in...

Currently they have "oc cluster ACTION [options]",  

and for the "up" action, they list a bunch of options, including installing (experimental) bits, like: Cassandra/Hawkular), via the --metrics option

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
While that is an interesting proposal around the addons, I would suggest waiting for the OpenShift team to get back on your issue. Adding a plugin structure to oc is likely a much bigger piece of work and need a lot more engagement from the OpenShift team. 
That doesn't mean a different proposal for this approach could not be made however, but rather that our current proposal covers our immediate need and has clear prior art.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd actually prefer more --mobile - which than does exactly what we need 

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

I’ve discussed this privately with Wojciech as I had misunderstood his suggestion, so here’s my attempt to clarify the discussion:

Rather than inserting our mobile oriented tasks into the upstream tool (oc), which doesn’t provide value to all users of that tool but rather only to the users who are interested in the mobile use-case; we should instead modify the tool so that it can accept addons, similar (ideally, identical) to minishift addons.

The proposal here would be something like:

oc cluster addons install mobilecore
oc cluster addons enable mobilecore
oc cluster up

There a few benefits to this solution:

  • There is a clear value-add to the upstream tool
  • We only need to maintain one mobilecore plugin for both minishift and oc cluster up
  • The barrier to entry for mobile developers is low
  • The process for setting up a local cluster is the same with both tools
  • Future changes to the setup process of the Mobile-Core can be submitted to our own repo

​@Wojciech please correct me, if I’ve still misunderstood anything!​

Regards,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:46 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think there's great value in --mobile flag.
Its the same approach for metrics and logging (--metrics, --logging)

It would do everything needed to enable the mobile extension and get the cluster into the state we want.
Having to provide multiple flags would make it just that little more complex that it raises the barrier.

I do think there's upstream value in allowing configuring a default org for the broker though, but I don't think it should be part of this proposal.

On 12 January 2018 at 11:39, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Wojciech,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting splitting this task in to two discrete pieces of work:

  • Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.
  • Add the —mobile flag to enable the Mobile-Core UI extension.

With the intention of making this an easier change to adopt.

If that is correct then I am happy to proceed this way and I can update the proposal to reflect this as a route to implementation.

Maybe it would be best to bring this discussion to the proposal so that the OpenShift team also have access to it?

Thanks,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Wojciech Trocki <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Red Hat Waterford

Communications House, Cork Road

Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki





--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear)



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github




--
Project lead AeroGear.org



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github



--
Project lead AeroGear.org

_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

Peter Braun
If we stick with the —mobile flag proposal setting up the service broker and default org is not enough. Don’t we need to install our custom resource definitions too?

Am 12.01.2018 um 13:21 schrieb Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]>:

I was about to say, that I'd be not surprised if there is not that much interest in brining this in...

Currently they have "oc cluster ACTION [options]",  

and for the "up" action, they list a bunch of options, including installing (experimental) bits, like: Cassandra/Hawkular), via the --metrics option

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
While that is an interesting proposal around the addons, I would suggest waiting for the OpenShift team to get back on your issue. Adding a plugin structure to oc is likely a much bigger piece of work and need a lot more engagement from the OpenShift team. 
That doesn't mean a different proposal for this approach could not be made however, but rather that our current proposal covers our immediate need and has clear prior art.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd actually prefer more --mobile - which than does exactly what we need 

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

I’ve discussed this privately with Wojciech as I had misunderstood his suggestion, so here’s my attempt to clarify the discussion:

Rather than inserting our mobile oriented tasks into the upstream tool (oc), which doesn’t provide value to all users of that tool but rather only to the users who are interested in the mobile use-case; we should instead modify the tool so that it can accept addons, similar (ideally, identical) to minishift addons.

The proposal here would be something like:

oc cluster addons install mobilecore
oc cluster addons enable mobilecore
oc cluster up

There a few benefits to this solution:

  • There is a clear value-add to the upstream tool
  • We only need to maintain one mobilecore plugin for both minishift and oc cluster up
  • The barrier to entry for mobile developers is low
  • The process for setting up a local cluster is the same with both tools
  • Future changes to the setup process of the Mobile-Core can be submitted to our own repo

​@Wojciech please correct me, if I’ve still misunderstood anything!​

Regards,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:46 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think there's great value in --mobile flag.
Its the same approach for metrics and logging (--metrics, --logging)

It would do everything needed to enable the mobile extension and get the cluster into the state we want.
Having to provide multiple flags would make it just that little more complex that it raises the barrier.

I do think there's upstream value in allowing configuring a default org for the broker though, but I don't think it should be part of this proposal.

On 12 January 2018 at 11:39, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Wojciech,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting splitting this task in to two discrete pieces of work:

  • Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.
  • Add the —mobile flag to enable the Mobile-Core UI extension.

With the intention of making this an easier change to adopt.

If that is correct then I am happy to proceed this way and I can update the proposal to reflect this as a route to implementation.

Maybe it would be best to bring this discussion to the proposal so that the OpenShift team also have access to it?

Thanks,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Wojciech Trocki <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Communications House, Cork Road
Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
WOJCIECH TROCKI

IM: wtrocki





--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear)



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github




--
Project lead AeroGear.org



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github



--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for addition of --mobile flag to oc cluster up

Wojciech Trocki
Reason why I proposed that is having mobile flag is harder to accept and it will impose limitations from the beginning on our system as some details will be hardcoded into openshift client.
I also see problems with maintaining this flag, handling multiple versions of clients etc. 
Mobile flag has also a lots of functionalities behind so it will take a while to explain and understand all requirements/impacts.

While entire idea is brilliant I wanted to propose additional aproach (without rejecting original idea or proposal which is fine to have).

IMHO Starting by small steps will help us with acceptance - not all changes will be accepted, but some of them will be. 
Having more than 4-5 contributors will help us a lot. We can establish community working group and propose things we care about.
Have some part in openshift ecosystem. To do that we will be able to get more contributors and eventually it may lead us to something like mobile flag.
This is what RedHat does a lot - see node.js, docker, kubernetes example.

IMHO Best for changes to be done in some small steps and by different people to get more contributors and recognition in community.
We already have strong presence in ASB thanks to Craig.

This why in my own opinion oc cluster up --metrics is not the same as oc cluster up --mobile
Metrics team is backed and supported by working group. It's also part of their documentation.

​@Wojciech please correct me, if I’ve still misunderstood anything!​

That sounds great!
Plus change mentioned before

Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.

There also many initiatives around `oc cluster up` based on ideas that were not be acceptable upstream. 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Peter Braun <[hidden email]> wrote:
If we stick with the —mobile flag proposal setting up the service broker and default org is not enough. Don’t we need to install our custom resource definitions too?


Am 12.01.2018 um 13:21 schrieb Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]>:

I was about to say, that I'd be not surprised if there is not that much interest in brining this in...

Currently they have "oc cluster ACTION [options]",  

and for the "up" action, they list a bunch of options, including installing (experimental) bits, like: Cassandra/Hawkular), via the --metrics option

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
While that is an interesting proposal around the addons, I would suggest waiting for the OpenShift team to get back on your issue. Adding a plugin structure to oc is likely a much bigger piece of work and need a lot more engagement from the OpenShift team. 
That doesn't mean a different proposal for this approach could not be made however, but rather that our current proposal covers our immediate need and has clear prior art.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'd actually prefer more --mobile - which than does exactly what we need 

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

I’ve discussed this privately with Wojciech as I had misunderstood his suggestion, so here’s my attempt to clarify the discussion:

Rather than inserting our mobile oriented tasks into the upstream tool (oc), which doesn’t provide value to all users of that tool but rather only to the users who are interested in the mobile use-case; we should instead modify the tool so that it can accept addons, similar (ideally, identical) to minishift addons.

The proposal here would be something like:

oc cluster addons install mobilecore
oc cluster addons enable mobilecore
oc cluster up

There a few benefits to this solution:

  • There is a clear value-add to the upstream tool
  • We only need to maintain one mobilecore plugin for both minishift and oc cluster up
  • The barrier to entry for mobile developers is low
  • The process for setting up a local cluster is the same with both tools
  • Future changes to the setup process of the Mobile-Core can be submitted to our own repo

​@Wojciech please correct me, if I’ve still misunderstood anything!​

Regards,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Craig Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:
+1

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:46 AM, David Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think there's great value in --mobile flag.
Its the same approach for metrics and logging (--metrics, --logging)

It would do everything needed to enable the mobile extension and get the cluster into the state we want.
Having to provide multiple flags would make it just that little more complex that it raises the barrier.

I do think there's upstream value in allowing configuring a default org for the broker though, but I don't think it should be part of this proposal.

On 12 January 2018 at 11:39, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Wojciech,

Thanks a lot for the feedback.

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting splitting this task in to two discrete pieces of work:

  • Add parameters to oc cluster up, to be able to configure the ansible-service-broker with custom docker credentials and docker org to pull in the ASBs from.
  • Add the —mobile flag to enable the Mobile-Core UI extension.

With the intention of making this an easier change to adopt.

If that is correct then I am happy to proceed this way and I can update the proposal to reflect this as a route to implementation.

Maybe it would be best to bring this discussion to the proposal so that the OpenShift team also have access to it?

Thanks,
Phil.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Wojciech Trocki <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mobile flag as it doesn't provide ability to change values and imposes some hard dependencies.
That may be hard accept and maintain on upstream.
Upstream works by generalization so if we want to contribute there it's best to pass something that can be used by many people.

How about `oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog` and whatever else we need?
That's easier to accept and contribute upstream. 
I have done changes for cluster up recently so if you need anything in that let me know - we can work on this together.

Another idea is to specify oc cluster up pre/post actions (hooks) that will allow people to run ansible roles for things we need.
That will be solid proposal that upstream may consider.

Developers can still have simple command by doing alias:

alias oc-mobile-up=`oc cluster up --service-broker=true --service-broker-org=aerogearcatalog`
 



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, David Ffrench <[hidden email]> wrote:
Fantastic Phil, This is 100% needed in my opinion. The mobile services need to be a first class citizen in OpenShift to ensure easy setup and adoption.

DAVID FFRENCH

senior software engineer, RED HAT MOBILE

Communications House, Cork Road
Waterford, Ireland

[hidden email]   



On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
+9001

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Phil Brookes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I have opened a proposal with the OpenShift team, hoping to start a discussion around the addition of a --mobile=true flag to the oc cluster up command. Running oc cluster up --mobile=true will start a local OpenShift cluster with all of the MCP features enabled.

This would be a great way for us to gain some exposure for the Mobile Core and get it into the hands of developers more quickly and easily, so I’d love to see you share your thoughts on this idea. You can review / comment / support it here:
https://github.com/openshift/origin/issues/18089

Thanks,
Phil.




--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--
WOJCIECH TROCKI

IM: wtrocki





--
David Martin
Red Hat Mobile
Twitter: @irldavem
IRC: @irldavem (#aerogear)



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github




--
Project lead AeroGear.org



--
Craig Brookes
RHMAP 
@maleck13 Github



--
Project lead AeroGear.org


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev




--

WOJCIECH TROCKI

Red Hat Mobile

IM: wtrocki


_______________________________________________
feedhenry-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev