31–40 of 185 posts
Looks really cool, excited to see some more detail on how it actually works! Why the new custom config file format? I've mostly found that these homegrown formats (logstash? nginx?) suffer from inconsistency and lack of flexibility, and don't have any obvious benefits. Why not use one of the following like other Hashicorp tools? - JSON/YAML, possibly with support for templating like Ansible - A Ruby DSL - A limited,…
https://github.com/hashicorp/hcl#why
It's JSON-compatible, at least (valid JSON is valid HCL).
Looks really cool, excited to see some more detail on how it actually works! Why the new custom config file format? I've mostly found that these homegrown formats (logstash? nginx?) suffer from inconsistency and lack of flexibility, and don't have any obvious benefits. Why not use one of the following like other Hashicorp tools? - JSON/YAML, possibly with support for templating like Ansible - A Ruby DSL - A limited,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? How is the statement false?
Ruby: MRI vs. REE vs jRuby vs Rubinius, for starters. And this choice is solved through a variety of mechanisms that people rely on for other parts of their infrastructure, and feel strongly about. For my part, this is also a solution that is way too late: We have Docker/Rocket and a range of similar tools. Why do it yet another way, when if you instead build a Docker image, you can take that Docker image and deploy…
There is already a pretty popular library for android named Otto http://square.github.io/otto/
Looks really cool, excited to see some more detail on how it actually works! Why the new custom config file format? I've mostly found that these homegrown formats (logstash? nginx?) suffer from inconsistency and lack of flexibility, and don't have any obvious benefits. Why not use one of the following like other Hashicorp tools? - JSON/YAML, possibly with support for templating like Ansible - A Ruby DSL - A limited,…
When you are writing templates for your configuration files, what you've wanted all along was a real programming language.
All Ruby development environments look alike, all PHP development environments look alike, etc. Did they do any user research? Doesn't feel like it based on the above statement.
For example, a lot of Vagrant LAMP users don't require much provisioning at all. Of the top 10 most downloaded Vagrant boxes [1], two of them are pre-provisioned (or nearly) Vagrant boxes. Homestead [2]: 2,769,045 downloads and Scotch Box [3]: 275,963 downloads.
The biggest problem with these setups is deployment. Vagrant Push [4] requires a little bit too much overhead for this audience. The blog announcement even admits this. Hell, Laravel/Taylor Otwell (the Homestead guys) even built a full on deployment service called Forge [5].
If I had to guess, Otto basically is a hybrid to all this. Like an easy Vagrant and basic Heroku all-in-one to help push their Hashicorp's Atlas product.
I'm definitely looking forward to testing it out. Personally loving Hashicorp.
[2] http://laravel.com/docs/5.1/homestead
"Notice that the Appfile makes no mention of OS, memory, disk space, etc. Otto has built-in knowledge of best practices and picks smart defaults for you." Sounds like a big bag of "nope."
I love the idea of focusing on the development part and letting something / someone else worry about hosting.
All Ruby development environments look alike, all PHP development environments look alike, etc. Did they do any user research? Doesn't feel like it based on the above statement.
Ruby is pretty standard and I assume PHP is as well being VERY mature. However, outside of the core things vary wildly. People using noSQL or simply using rails-api for some examples. Maybe they can manage this well and allow for variance, but Even somewhat granularly no environment is the same. I have never used Docket or containers, but this seems to be the selling point. You don't use a service to help you configu…
edit: Or at least it should in theory.