Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

OpenSAF Wanted Architecture_ TLC view by wangnianwu


									TLC F2F Meeting, 21st September 2009
              Bellevue, WA
9:00    Agenda Review                            15min
9:15    OpenSAF Openness, Web Site & Processes 1:30h
10:45   Improving collaborative infrastructure   15min
11:00   OpenSAF Wanted Architecture              1:30h
12:30   Lunch (working)
12:45   TLC work improvements                    45min
13:30   Follow up on Yang discussion             1h
14:30   Developer Days 2010 (45 min)             45min
15:15   OpenSAF Release 4                        1.5h
        Preparation for OpenSAF Release 4
16:45                                            1h
17:45   AOB
•   Jonas Arndt
•   Jonathan Fournier
•   Sayandeb Saha
•   Uli Kleber
•   Jan Lindblad (Tail-f)
•   Mario Angelic (scribe)
OpenSAF Openness,
   Web Site & Processes
•   Problem
     –   How big the problem is ? Anybody has direct experience/feedback?
           •   Openness of TLC
                  –   AP (TCC):
                         » More clear description how to get into TLC based merit.
                         » Downplay TLC; emphasize community
                         » Inviting developers for appropriate items on weekly meeting
           •   Openness of WGs
                  –   Must be transparent
                  –   Decision: We move discussion to devel list, for the time beeing; since devel mail load is not large
           •   Perception
                  –   ICPA/CCPA ?
                         » BoD is reviewing ICPA/CCPA
•   Wanted Position
     –   Project perceived as fully open & transparent
     –   Anybody can get involved, or influence, everybody can see status of release and where the project
         is going
•   How to achieve (proposals so far)
     –   Get Involved on owned by TLC
     –   TLC mailing list (we still keep private)
     –   Decision: TLC F2F agenda proposals on devel list
     –   Decision: Open TLC minutes (from now)
     –   Decision: Better reflection of what is going in/around OpenSAF on the dev wiki
           •   “Wanted Architecture” available on wiki
           •   Release status (+ Blog): Active Blog => Project Blog
           •   AP (Jonathan): Do initial proposal of which Trac sections should be removed/changed.
           •   AP (Jonathan): Get professional help for initial Devel page layout; and Trac.
                  –   We will use TLC budget to finance this
    Developer Web-site
•   Problem
     – It is too static
     – Not suited for “targeted users”
•   Wanted Position
     – Site should be easy to use by. We have to think of different target groups:
          •   “I heard first time for OpenSAF” group
          •   First time/Potential Users
          •   Users
          •   First Time/Potential OpenSAF Developers
          •   OpenSAF Developers
          •   First Time/Potential Application Developers
          •   Application Developers
     – Use base templates from successful projects + commercial support
          • Use above, target audience list, as check-list when evaluating new proposals
•   How to achieve this
     – Maybe the top page/s should be HTML, then more changeable part will be wiki. Dynamic
       part on top page (Project Status) will be dynamic.
     – Open Issue: Should point to “OpenSAF Project” web page. And foundation
       have We should first make sure that we are happy with
       Developer web-site before we could propose this.
     – Decisions:
          • Get Involved must be on top page with tree-like structure addressing different groups needs
          • Organize web site for easy browsing by each “group”
          • Get professional advice/help (AP on previous slide)
• Problem
   – Initial process have not be revised from ~launch (some smaller parts are
   – Lengthy documents
   – Process description and practice are not aligned
   – Releases work today; but would be harder to scale when involving new
• Wanted Position
   – Simple processes, easy to read, use of graphical flow
   – Process is aligned with practice and actively maintained
• How to achieve
   –   Any tool we can use to create “clickable html processes flows” ?
   –   Align process description with good practices
   –   Actively maintain
   –   Divide work among TLC members, involve developers (at least to review)
   –   Establish timeline
   –   Action Points on following slide.
    Process, cont.
•    AP (TCC)
      – Move TOP outside of developer wiki
•    AP (Mario)
      – Development Process
•    AP (Jonathan)
      – Developer Handbook
      – Developer Guide
      – Add search for mailing list
•    AP (Sayan)
      – Getting Started
           • Remove recommendations for commercial Linux distribution
•    AP (Murthy)
      – Action Point for providing the bug categorization based on oopensource projects. I
        will provide that material before F2F.
•    AP (Steve)
      – Create Release Checklist (for
           • GA Release Checklist It should also contain the check for web
           • For each GA create HTML bundle, that can be browsed online
•    AP (Mario)
      – Add “Documentation strategy improvement” on the issues to discuss on TLC
OpenSAF Collaborative Tools
• Problem
   – Improving efficiency of distributed teams (developers, WGs, TLC)
   – We have mails, “devel IRC”, but we need “HP Virtual Room” like tool
     available to developers as well
• Wanted Position
   – Provide tools to developers that easy distributed development
   – Possible to use IP telephony, no need for conf call bridges
• How to achieve
   – Evaluate couple of alternatives (quality and cost aspects)
       • GoTo meeting (for less the 1k$/year possible to hold webinars for upto 1000
       • Webex:
       • AP (Mario & Jonas): Check the OS support for these alternatives, check the
         cost, evaluate product.
   – If evaluation results with positive outcome: Ask the budget from BoD (TLC
     already has several k$ budget this year so this should not be an issue).
 Wanted Architecture
• Define our “vision” for OpenSAF (still call it OpenSAF Wanted
  Architecture). Example:
       • OpenSAF is default choice for solving simple and complex HA cases
       • OpenSAF used for HA of C/C++ application as well as Java, Python, …
       • Linux Distribution independent (Relying on LSB)
       • HW platform independent (or easy “integration” with different HW
         management technologies)
       • OpenSAF is base platform middleware component that together with
         other open-source/commercial components is used to build a
       • There is ecosystem around OpenSAF
• Based on vision TLC should drive architecture use-cases
• Wanted Architecture should reflect “vision”, meaning it should
  clarify how OpenSAF solves architecture use-cases and vision
• Decision:
   – AP (TCC): Drive this topics in Wanted Architecture document and
     sessions on weekly TLC meetings.
Wanted Architecture
• So far we have focused on several architectural aspects:
   – Streamline of architecture
   – Modularity
• We need to work on overall architecture aspects:
   – Deployment use-cases
   – Architecture significant use-cases
   – …
Architectural Topics to Discuss
•   PLM HW management plugin architecture
     – Why:
         • OpenSAF Goal: “HW platform independent (or easy “integration” with different HW
           management technologies)”.
         • PLM: Delivered by SAF MW or HW Vendor? With plugin architecture responsibility is clear!
     – How:
         • Have internal PLM simple interface (PLM SPI) to drive PLM HE state machine
         • Plugin has responsibility that based on specific HW events drive HE state machine via PLM
           SPI interface
         • TLC discussed PLM HW management pluggable architecture that could results in better
           PLM and OpenSAF that can easier satisfy HW portability goal.
         • Open Issue: How would PLM SPI look like?
         • Open Issue: Will it be possible to have this in Release 4 (not likely for timing reasons since
           PLM is on critical line)
         • AP (Mario): Drive “PLM SPI” and PLM HW management plugin discussion through Wanted
           Architecture work in weekly meetings.
         • What about EE?
              – There is already implicit plugin architecture. We should formalize it (i.e. define protocol between
                PLMS and PLMc) !
•   How will FM be affected with Introduction of PLM?
•   OpenSAF startup (service dependency)
     – Opportunity to revise/improve especially with introduction of PLM
     – AP (TCC): Drive this through Wanted Architecture discussion on weekly TLC
TLC work improvements
• Problem
   – TLC meetings tend to become “project status” or “DD status” meetings
   – Ambition was always that TLC drives/facilitates architectural discussions
   – Some TLC members never participate in TLC meetings
       • We have formal decision process described in operating procedures; and
         most/all decisions require quorum. What will be the policy if some TLC
         members are not participating for longer time-period. We can come to situation
         that we never have quorum.
• Wanted
   – Architecture/Technical Discussions
   – Decisions:
       • We should establish practice that WG/developers lift up system issues to TLC
       • TLC should raise system/architecture issue that it sees on developer mailing list
       • Template for meetings
            – Relevant also to making minutes open
            – AP (TCC): Create initial template proposal and send to TLC for review
       • Invite more frequently developers to participate on TLC meetings when relevant
         architecture discussion.
       • AP (TCC): Lift up to the BoD for TLC memebers not participating in TLC work
 Preparation for OpenSAF Release 4 launch
• Release 4 is MAJOR OpenSAF Release
• Strategy/approaches how to best support "launch" of Release 4 ( what
  items to emphasize) from TLC point of view
   –   prepare articles covering most interesting items
   –   select forums/conferences where to publish them
   –   online news sites (technical like LWN), update Wikipedia text
   –   prepare webinars (at least 2), etc. update datasheet,
   –   vmware appliances
   –   AP (TCC): Drive this through TLC weekly meetings
• Educating marketing workgroup of difference between Release 3 and
  Release 4
   – AP: TLC should produce technical overview (Release Description)
     document outlining differences and benefits
        •   API, ABI compatibility
        •   Configuration
        •   In-service upgradeability
        •   …
• AP (TLC): vmware appliances for every GA release, for increased
 Developer Days 2010
• Technical Scope
   – Overview and Demo for features introduced in Release 4
   – Presenting architecture changes (mapping them to real-world use cases)
   – Presenting and discussing Wanted Architecture items coming after Release
   – Application Demos
       • At least one demo with 3pp open-source component hooked up
• When
   – Late May, Early June
   – Open Issue: Problem with other conferences in same timeframe ?
• Where
   – North America
   – Bay area, Alameda (WR) ?
Follow-up on the Yang discussion

• Discussion on potential Yang driven Netconf agent using OpenSAF
  IMM. Jan will com back to TLC with feasibility of such contribution to
OpenSAF Release 4

• For example some interesting PLM "corner" use cases
  that require whiteboard to clarify, etc.
• We have discussed some PLM use-cases, mostly
  related to startup issues on payloads and more
  specifically on controllers.
• Discussion will continue on PLM WG

To top