Microsoft launches new open-source projects around Kubernetes and microservices

Post by jeethsuresh » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 11:04 PM UTC

vturecek wrote: post #106

jeethsuresh wrote: post #6

Dapr looks like Microsoft's answer to Istio - anecdotally, I've never gotten Istio to work (as recently as a few months ago) so I'll have to give this one a try at some point to see if they've done a better job. OAM though, perplexes me. Even the justification - that k8s is out of scope of the developer, and is handled by ops - speaks to a misunderstanding of some of the advantages clusters provide. Some research [1]…

The overarching idea with OAM is to standardize the model by which applications are composed and operated, regardless of the environment you end up working in. So as you go from one platform to another, you have a consistent experience and a transferable process. We fully expect the implementing platform capabilities to differ, and the model is designed around this assumption. I think some standardization here is val…

Post by jacques_chester » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 11:17 PM UTC

the_duke wrote: post #116

jacques_chester wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Kubernetes-the-scheduler and Kubernetes-the-patterns-with-reified-examples have diverged and are going to continue diverging. The latter is more of a microkernel for distributed control systems. My hunch is that this means OAM may be dead letter in the long run. Abstract from Kubernetes-as-scheduler, fine and good. But Kubernetes-as-microkernel is close to doing that already. Whatever my gripes about the deta…

Keeping different perspectives and roles in mind is important here. I think the quotes in the article make very good points. I've introduced Kubernetes at multiple companies , usually with good results. But Kubernetes is a relatively low level runtime. It requires a lot of knowledge if you want to use it correctly, even with hosted Kubernetes offerings. Application developers want to specify how the application works…

Post by tracker1 » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 1:54 AM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #43

klodolph wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t understand the XML hate either. It was just a bit annoying to parse, depending on the language and ecosystem you used. It was a little verbose, but so what?

The biggest problem to me is that XML is not a data serialization language, it's a document markup language. In documents, the distinction between attributes and content makes sense. In data serialization, the choice of whether a given datum is an attribute or a text content appears rather arbitrary. Should I write this? XML Cookbook Jane Doe Or this? Now attributes don't work when there are multiple values, so I gue…

Post by latchkey » Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 2:15 AM UTC

gabrtv wrote: post #86

latchkey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I concur, my same reaction as well. Every place I've worked at where there was a line drawn in the sand like this, showed a huge amount of dysfunction, chair spinning and finger pointing.

Gabe from the Azure team here. If you’re talking about orgs where software is tossed over the wall from dev to ops, then I agree. The goal here is to empower the internal ops function to build self-service platforms with clean interfaces so developers can do what they do best, which is write code and business logic.

Post by resouer » Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 5:49 AM UTC

latchkey wrote: post #127

gabrtv wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gabe from the Azure team here. If you’re talking about orgs where software is tossed over the wall from dev to ops, then I agree. The goal here is to empower the internal ops function to build self-service platforms with clean interfaces so developers can do what they do best, which is write code and business logic.

> "developers can do what they do best, which is write code and business logic" That is the exact mentality that I see as totally dysfunctional.