[chef] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Introducing the httpd cookbook

[Jesse Nelson < >]

Braulio, 

  This doesn't preclude you from using attributes. This adds a better primitive that cookbooks that want to present an attribute-driven model can use. So this cookbook is  bottom layer  with cleaner separation from the 'traditional' cookbook. Where apache2 cookbook has definitions you could build the same apache2 cookbook that uses the resources from the http cookbook instead.  Nothing Is lost here, but everything is gained. Because other users can now go make a different apache2 cookbook with their own base assumptions. Or an organization can re-use the httpd primitives to their own liking.  

Re mixing code and conf: 

  Since we are actually configuring things and not just writing code, but code that configures.  Abstraction and Information hiding of the most important information IMO is really bad. An operator or developer that wants to know how a service got into the state of listening on port 1337 would have to chase that down first in recipe attributes. then in roles then in environments, and grok attribute precedence  to understand how it is getting expressed.  Declaring that state in the Authoritative location the 'top level' recipe is IMO the most maintainable/operable way to build infra with chef. Since I am stating clearly that this Fact about the service/server is supposed to be this way, and this recipe is the authority. IMO it's Composability over Inheritance (from the recipe standpoint not the H/LWRP's).

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Bráulio Bhavamitra < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Hello Sean!

Again, there is a shift of paradigm going on. All the attribute overide graph is now obselete with this wrapper cookbook logic. I'm worried that the old model is being deprecated.

About the "dynamic_httpd" example, it really make evident the need from users to configure things the old way. And it bogus that you need two cookbooks for one simple thing!

cheers,

bráulio

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Sean OMeara < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

Everybody just keep calm and carry on loving Chef =)

Bráulio!

I totally understand where you're coming from. It's as if a million
blog posts, tutorials, and Vagrant files suddenly cried out in horror.
You can't add a resource directly to a run_list, and that's annoying.
Meau Culpa.

I love that this conversation is happening. Let's riff on this a bit.

First, lets address resources vs cookbooks, then we can talk about
dynamically driven cookbooks via node attributes.

Here's the thing. Chef is supposed to be easy. People think it's hard.
Its usually people's experience consuming community cookbooks that
drives this perception. Simple cookbooks grow in scope and complexity
over time, as platform support grows, new platform versions come out,
and new versions of the technology under automation are released.

We're trying to get back to here: http://bit.ly/1mIOlyG

I don't think this is controversial. The trend towards publishing
cookbooks that ship new resources is a direct result of this. Creating
a resource has a lot of advantages over cookbooks.... First, it forces
the author to write down the interface (via parameters), defines a
scope, creates a closure around variables, and defines a domain of
predictability.

Regarding the lack or recipes in this cookbook:

The reason I chose not to ship any recipes is because that's the
simplest possible thing to do. (from the my perspective.) Breaking the
normal consumption pattern of "run list add" or include_recipe, drives
home the primitive-ness of this cookbook. This is a Chef module that
provides a new autonomous test-and-repair-bot, not a piece of
opinionated policy.

You know what you should totally do? Repair that consumption pattern.

Be the person who writes the popular cookbook that consumes this.
Publish it on the Supermarket.
Have your cookbook be the one appears in all the blog posts and
tutorials. Drive it with attributes. Call it "dynamic_httpd", or
something more clever.

Shipping the primitives gives you the freedom to do that.

-s

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Nelson < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

> Using a wrapper cookbook you wouldn't need to set attributes if you didn't
> want to.  For example If in my org I know the absolute authority for
> configuring httpd is my cookbook then I have no need for attributes and can
> declare exactly what I want in the recipe. In your attribute model you force
> someone like me to use attributes when he doesn't want too. With just an
> LWRP model you get the most flexibility with the least amount of assumptions
> on implementation.
>
> Turns out high levels of flexibility with low levels of baked in assumptions
> is what most people want in a shared cookbook. If you want something that
> works out of the box then wait for someone to come along and publish a more
> apache2 like cookbook that used this httpd library cook.
>
> WRT Simple I contest that this is the more simple thing:
>
>    https_service "mything" do
>       listen 80
>       run_user "awesemo"
>    end
>
> VS
>
>     https_service node[:some_namespace][:http_service_name] do
>        listen  node[:some_namespace][:http_port]
>        run_user  node[:some_namespace][:http_user]
>     end
>
> Which one of those is easier to operate ?  If it's that you just want to set
> attributes in an environment or role. Then I would give you the benefit and
> say yea maybe the library cook isn't as easy as the non-library
> 'attribute-driven' cookbook. In this case I would also argue that the
> management and operation of that model will far outweigh the time of
> building a simple 'top level' cookbook to build your thing that is
> declarative and easy to reason about.
>
> Thanks Sean for all the work on this http cookbook I look forward to abusing
> it soon.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Bráulio Bhavamitra < " target="_blank"> >
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Sean OMeara < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
>>>
>>> You can absolutely use node attributes to drive your recipe... same
>>> way you would use core Chef resource.
>>>
>>> Your example would look more like this...
>>>
>>> node['httpd']['services'].each do |service_name, val1, val2|
>>>    httpd_service service_name do
>>>      listen_ports val1
>>>      run_user val2
>>>    end
>>> end
>>
>> Correct, except that I would still use the send method.
>>
>> What I'm suggesting is that a code like this must be on the httpd
>> cookbook, so that people can use it *very fast for simple cases*, *without a
>> wrapper cookbook*.
>>>
>>>
>>> -s
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Bráulio Bhavamitra
>>> < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
>>> > But why left node values forgotten? LWRP can be used with node values,
>>> > for
>>> > example:
>>> >
>>> > node[:httpd][:services].each do |service|
>>> >   httpd_service do
>>> >     service.each{ |key, value| send key, value }
>>> >   end
>>> > end
>>> >
>>> > Also, the provider could have a way to specify how node attributes
>>> > should
>>> > fill LWRP
>>> >
>>> > cheers,
>>> > bráulio
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Lamont Granquist < " target="_blank"> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Yep, agreed with all of that.  There's the detail of why shareable
>>> >> recipes
>>> >> have failed, though, and have been replaced by LWRPs.  The more
>>> >> involved
>>> >> members of the community have all come to that realization, but its
>>> >> come
>>> >> at the
>>> >> cost of years of fighting with it.  I don't think the failures have
>>> >> been
>>> >> enumerated
>>> >> clearly so that others understand it.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri Aug 22 18:54:45 2014, Adam Jacob wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I look at a little differently. I think, for most people, the promise
>>> >>> of shareable recipes that encode policy has failed. If you make them
>>> >>> flexible enough to matter (apaxhe2, say) you have a very complicated
>>> >>> beast, when you probably only needed 20 lines of it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I think it may well be that the having resources be the prime unit of
>>> >>> re-use, rather than recipes, may well be the right abstraction in the
>>> >>> end.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Adam
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Aug 22, 2014 6:31 PM, "Lamont Granquist" < " target="_blank">
>>> >>> <mailto: " target="_blank"> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>     On Fri Aug 22 18:12:27 2014, Bráulio Bhavamitra wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>         I still cannot get this model of "all done by a wrapper
>>> >>>         cookbook using
>>> >>>         LWRP". It is just simpler to read node values...
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>     When you go down that road you eventually wind up needing two of
>>> >>> a
>>> >>>     thing on a server and not just one instance.   Then you start
>>> >>>     putting arrays of hashes in your attributes.  Since you're now
>>> >>>     looping over an array and firing off a lot of resources you'll
>>> >>>     want to internally implement that problem as LWRPs anyway.  Then
>>> >>>     eventually you'll wind up wanting to merge arrays in your
>>> >>>     attributes and you'll wind up on this page eventually:
>>> >>>     https://coderanger.net/arrays-__and-chef/
>>> >>>
>>> >>>     <https://coderanger.net/arrays-and-chef/>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>     Its much easier to just expose the LWRPs.  Then the user can use
>>> >>>     node attributes, drive them with databags, or just statically
>>> >>> code
>>> >>>     them in the LWRP.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > "Lute pela sua ideologia. Seja um com sua ideologia. Viva pela sua
>>> > ideologia. Morra por sua ideologia" P.R. Sarkar
>>> >
>>> > EITA - Educação, Informação e Tecnologias para Autogestão
>>> > http://cirandas.net/brauliobo
>>> > http://eita.org.br
>>> >
>>> > "Paramapurusha é meu pai e Parama Prakriti é minha mãe. O universo é
>>> > meu lar
>>> > e todos nós somos cidadãos deste cosmo. Este universo é a imaginação da
>>> > Mente Macrocósmica, e todas as entidades estão sendo criadas,
>>> > preservadas e
>>> > destruídas nas fases de extroversão e introversão do fluxo imaginativo
>>> > cósmico. No âmbito pessoal, quando uma pessoa imagina algo em sua
>>> > mente,
>>> > naquele momento, essa pessoa é a única proprietária daquilo que ela
>>> > imagina,
>>> > e ninguém mais. Quando um ser humano criado mentalmente caminha por um
>>> > milharal também imaginado, a pessoa imaginada não é a propriedade desse
>>> > milharal, pois ele pertence ao indivíduo que o está imaginando. Este
>>> > universo foi criado na imaginação de Brahma, a Entidade Suprema, por
>>> > isso a
>>> > propriedade deste universo é de Brahma, e não dos microcosmos que
>>> > também
>>> > foram criados pela imaginação de Brahma. Nenhuma propriedade deste
>>> > mundo,
>>> > mutável ou imutável, pertence a um indivíduo em particular; tudo é o
>>> > patrimônio comum de todos."
>>> > Restante do texto em
>>> > http://cirandas.net/brauliobo/blog/a-problematica-de-hoje-em-dia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Lute pela sua ideologia. Seja um com sua ideologia. Viva pela sua
>> ideologia. Morra por sua ideologia" P.R. Sarkar
>>
>> EITA - Educação, Informação e Tecnologias para Autogestão
>> http://cirandas.net/brauliobo
>> http://eita.org.br
>>
>> "Paramapurusha é meu pai e Parama Prakriti é minha mãe. O universo é meu
>> lar e todos nós somos cidadãos deste cosmo. Este universo é a imaginação da
>> Mente Macrocósmica, e todas as entidades estão sendo criadas, preservadas e
>> destruídas nas fases de extroversão e introversão do fluxo imaginativo
>> cósmico. No âmbito pessoal, quando uma pessoa imagina algo em sua mente,
>> naquele momento, essa pessoa é a única proprietária daquilo que ela imagina,
>> e ninguém mais. Quando um ser humano criado mentalmente caminha por um
>> milharal também imaginado, a pessoa imaginada não é a propriedade desse
>> milharal, pois ele pertence ao indivíduo que o está imaginando. Este
>> universo foi criado na imaginação de Brahma, a Entidade Suprema, por isso a
>> propriedade deste universo é de Brahma, e não dos microcosmos que também
>> foram criados pela imaginação de Brahma. Nenhuma propriedade deste mundo,
>> mutável ou imutável, pertence a um indivíduo em particular; tudo é o
>> patrimônio comum de todos."
>> Restante do texto em
>> http://cirandas.net/brauliobo/blog/a-problematica-de-hoje-em-dia
>
>

--

"Lute pela sua ideologia. Seja um com sua ideologia. Viva pela sua ideologia. Morra por sua ideologia" P.R. Sarkar

EITA - Educação, Informação e Tecnologias para Autogestão
http://cirandas.net/brauliobo
http://eita.org.br

"Paramapurusha é meu pai e Parama Prakriti é minha mãe. O universo é meu lar e todos nós somos cidadãos deste cosmo. Este universo é a imaginação da Mente Macrocósmica, e todas as entidades estão sendo criadas, preservadas e destruídas nas fases de extroversão e introversão do fluxo imaginativo cósmico. No âmbito pessoal, quando uma pessoa imagina algo em sua mente, naquele momento, essa pessoa é a única proprietária daquilo que ela imagina, e ninguém mais. Quando um ser humano criado mentalmente caminha por um milharal também imaginado, a pessoa imaginada não é a propriedade desse milharal, pois ele pertence ao indivíduo que o está imaginando. Este universo foi criado na imaginação de Brahma, a Entidade Suprema, por isso a propriedade deste universo é de Brahma, e não dos microcosmos que também foram criados pela imaginação de Brahma. Nenhuma propriedade deste mundo, mutável ou imutável, pertence a um indivíduo em particular; tudo é o patrimônio comum de todos."
Restante do texto em http://cirandas.net/brauliobo/blog/a-problematica-de-hoje-em-dia