You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@mesos.apache.org by Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> on 2014/12/01 20:10:44 UTC
Rocket
Hi all,
Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer
runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image
specification/distribution.
All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we
also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain
points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
security as well.
I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
isolators into Rocket runtime.
Like to learn what you all think,
Thanks!
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com>.
Absolutely...
Cheers,
Tim
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
> To: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>, user@mesos.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 1:10:44 PM
> Subject: Rocket
> Hi all,
> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/ ) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer
> runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image
> specification/distribution.
> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we
> also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain
> points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
> security as well.
> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
> isolators into Rocket runtime.
> Like to learn what you all think,
> Thanks!
--
Cheers,
Timothy St. Clair
Red Hat Inc.
Re: Rocket
Posted by Jing Dong <ji...@qubitdigital.com>.
Very promising idea. Rocket is absolutely looking at Docker's flaw and
improve the production environment.
On 1 Dec 2014, at 20:30, Tom Arnfeld <to...@duedil.com> wrote:
+1 Sounds exciting!
--
Tom Arnfeld
Developer // DueDil
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds great Tim!
>
> Do you know if they have published an API for the rocket toolset? Are we
> gonna rely on the command line interface?
>
> - Jie
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>> security and image specification/distribution.
>>
>> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
>> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
>> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
>> security as well.
>>
>> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
>> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>
>> Like to learn what you all think,
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tom Arnfeld <to...@duedil.com>.
+1 Sounds exciting!
--
Tom Arnfeld
Developer // DueDil
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds great Tim!
> Do you know if they have published an API for the rocket toolset? Are we
> gonna rely on the command line interface?
> - Jie
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>> security and image specification/distribution.
>>
>> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
>> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
>> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
>> security as well.
>>
>> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
>> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>
>> Like to learn what you all think,
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tom Arnfeld <to...@duedil.com>.
+1 Sounds exciting!
--
Tom Arnfeld
Developer // DueDil
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds great Tim!
> Do you know if they have published an API for the rocket toolset? Are we
> gonna rely on the command line interface?
> - Jie
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>> security and image specification/distribution.
>>
>> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
>> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
>> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
>> security as well.
>>
>> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
>> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>
>> Like to learn what you all think,
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>.
Hi Jie,
I don't think they've published any API yet, the actual integration story
is TBD but given the early stage we can help shape the API as well.
Tim
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds great Tim!
>
> Do you know if they have published an API for the rocket toolset? Are we
> gonna rely on the command line interface?
>
> - Jie
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>> security and image specification/distribution.
>>
>> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
>> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
>> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
>> security as well.
>>
>> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
>> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>
>> Like to learn what you all think,
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Sounds great Tim!
Do you know if they have published an API for the rocket toolset? Are we
gonna rely on the command line interface?
- Jie
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
> security and image specification/distribution.
>
> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
> security as well.
>
> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>
> Like to learn what you all think,
>
> Thanks!
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Abhishek Parolkar <ab...@parolkar.com>.
Looks interesting definitely +1
-parolkar
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Tobias Knaup <to...@knaup.me> wrote:
> An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
> (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
> Here is the spec:
> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
> This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
> easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
> the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
> something else or come with its own.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>> instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is
>> always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>> specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it.
>>
>> Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
>> value through a C++ implementation.
>>
>> I've created a JIRA ticket
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts
>> on this.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>>> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>>> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>>> security and image specification/distribution.
>>>
>>> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
>>> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
>>> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
>>> security as well.
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>>> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
>>> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>>
>>> Like to learn what you all think,
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>> *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>>
>
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by John Pampuch <jo...@mesosphere.io>.
That is one of its key benefits: the specification is separate from the implementation. That encourages good implementations, and readily allows for multiples.
-John
Sent from my location
> On Dec 5, 2014, at 7:20 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com> wrote:
>
> If it ends up being not open, then we'd have to. But they're clearly not going in that direction given they've already published it publicly and have requested feedback.
>
> I would strongly urge us to avoid this, however. A common spec is so much stronger than any individual one.
>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Arunabha Ghosh <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Should CoreOS decide to adopt a governance model which is not open or what the Mesos community wants, does it make sense to adopt the Rocket spec and evolve it along with Mesos ? Having a documented container spec for Mesos which can evolve along with Mesos would in some ways be better than perhaps adopting Rocket's spec.
>>
>> Arunabha
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks, I'll take the discussion to the GitHub issue.
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>
>>>> I actually can't remember is it on the github issue, email list or twitter feed, but definitely one of them.
>>>>
>>>> Tim St Clair just brought up Apache on #139, and I'm a +1 on that as well.
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to chime in on that Github issue you linked.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Tim C,
>>>>>
>>>>> Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say "Apache is one of the options mentioned"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see it it in the discussion thread for https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find it and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear from the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day one. Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe something along that line is most probable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to maintain as an containerizer option for us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inline below
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>>>>> To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>>>>>> Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Rocket
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point of the open container spec.
>>>>>>> I'm all over this like white on rice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
>>>>>>> Relationships alone won't cut it.
>>>>>>> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with Docker...?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that we have say in the spec going forwards?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
>>>>>>>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>>>>>>> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>>>>>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>>>>>>>> > Subject: Re: Rocket
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
>>>>>>>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>>>>>>>> > Here is the spec:
>>>>>>>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>>>>>>>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
>>>>>>>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
>>>>>>>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
>>>>>>>> > something else or come with its own.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>>>>>>>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is
>>>>>>>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>>>>>>>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it.
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
>>>>>>>> > > value through a C++ implementation.
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>>>>>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on
>>>>>>>> > > this.
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > >> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>>>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>>>>>>>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>>>>>>>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>>>>>>>> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>>>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>>>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
>>>>>>>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
>>>>>>>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
>>>>>>>> > >> security as well.
>>>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>>>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>>>>>>>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
>>>>>>>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>>>> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>>>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>>>> > >> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > --
>>>>>>>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>>>>>>>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>>>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>
>
>
> --
> Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
> There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.
Re: Rocket
Posted by John Pampuch <jo...@mesosphere.io>.
That is one of its key benefits: the specification is separate from the implementation. That encourages good implementations, and readily allows for multiples.
-John
Sent from my location
> On Dec 5, 2014, at 7:20 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com> wrote:
>
> If it ends up being not open, then we'd have to. But they're clearly not going in that direction given they've already published it publicly and have requested feedback.
>
> I would strongly urge us to avoid this, however. A common spec is so much stronger than any individual one.
>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Arunabha Ghosh <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Should CoreOS decide to adopt a governance model which is not open or what the Mesos community wants, does it make sense to adopt the Rocket spec and evolve it along with Mesos ? Having a documented container spec for Mesos which can evolve along with Mesos would in some ways be better than perhaps adopting Rocket's spec.
>>
>> Arunabha
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks, I'll take the discussion to the GitHub issue.
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>
>>>> I actually can't remember is it on the github issue, email list or twitter feed, but definitely one of them.
>>>>
>>>> Tim St Clair just brought up Apache on #139, and I'm a +1 on that as well.
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to chime in on that Github issue you linked.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey Tim C,
>>>>>
>>>>> Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say "Apache is one of the options mentioned"?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see it it in the discussion thread for https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find it and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear from the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day one. Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe something along that line is most probable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to maintain as an containerizer option for us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> inline below
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>>>>> To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>>>>>> Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Rocket
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point of the open container spec.
>>>>>>> I'm all over this like white on rice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
>>>>>>> Relationships alone won't cut it.
>>>>>>> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with Docker...?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that we have say in the spec going forwards?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
>>>>>>>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>>>>>>> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>>>>>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>>>>>>>> > Subject: Re: Rocket
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
>>>>>>>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>>>>>>>> > Here is the spec:
>>>>>>>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>>>>>>>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
>>>>>>>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
>>>>>>>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
>>>>>>>> > something else or come with its own.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>>>>>>>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is
>>>>>>>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>>>>>>>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it.
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
>>>>>>>> > > value through a C++ implementation.
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>>>>>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on
>>>>>>>> > > this.
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > >> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>>>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>>>>>>>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>>>>>>>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>>>>>>>> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>>>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>>>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
>>>>>>>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
>>>>>>>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
>>>>>>>> > >> security as well.
>>>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>>>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>>>>>>>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
>>>>>>>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>>>> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>>>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>>>> > >> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> > > --
>>>>>>>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>>>>>>>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>>>>>>>> > >
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>>>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>
>
>
> --
> Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
> There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.
Re: Rocket
Posted by Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>.
If it ends up being not open, then we'd have to. But they're clearly not
going in that direction given they've already published it publicly and
have requested feedback.
I would strongly urge us to avoid this, however. A common spec is so much
stronger than any individual one.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Arunabha Ghosh <ar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Should CoreOS decide to adopt a governance model which is not open or what
> the Mesos community wants, does it make sense to adopt the Rocket spec and
> evolve it along with Mesos ? Having a documented container spec for Mesos
> which can evolve along with Mesos would in some ways be better than perhaps
> adopting Rocket's spec.
>
> Arunabha
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I'll take the discussion to the GitHub issue.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> I actually can't remember is it on the github issue, email list or
>>> twitter feed, but definitely one of them.
>>>
>>> Tim St Clair just brought up Apache on #139, and I'm a +1 on that as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> Feel free to chime in on that Github issue you linked.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Tim C,
>>>>
>>>> Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say "Apache
>>>> is one of the options mentioned"?
>>>>
>>>> I don't see it it in the discussion thread for
>>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find
>>>> it and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see.
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>>
>>>>> Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear
>>>>> from the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day
>>>>> one. Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe
>>>>> something along that line is most probable.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to
>>>>> maintain as an containerizer option for us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> inline below
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *"Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>>> *To: *user@mesos.apache.org
>>>>> *Cc: *"dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Rocket
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from
>>>>> their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point
>>>>> of the open container spec.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm all over this like white on rice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and
>>>>> continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the
>>>>> rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Relationships alone won't cut it.
>>>>> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with
>>>>> Docker...?
>>>>>
>>>>> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on
>>>>>> establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure
>>>>>> that we have say in the spec going forwards?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
>>>>>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>>>>> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>>>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>>>>>> > Subject: Re: Rocket
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a
>>>>>> spec
>>>>>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>>>>>> > Here is the spec:
>>>>>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>>>>>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes
>>>>>> it much
>>>>>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the
>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos
>>>>>> can use
>>>>>> > something else or come with its own.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <
>>>>>> dhamon@twopensource.com>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A
>>>>>> community is
>>>>>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>>>>>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to
>>>>>> improve it.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and
>>>>>> provide
>>>>>> > > value through a C++ implementation.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>>>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any
>>>>>> thoughts on
>>>>>> > > this.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >> Hi all,
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>>>>>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>>>>>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components,
>>>>>> better
>>>>>> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where
>>>>>> in Mesos
>>>>>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been
>>>>>> experiencing some
>>>>>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image
>>>>>> distribution and
>>>>>> > >> security as well.
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new
>>>>>> Rocket
>>>>>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> Thanks!
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > --
>>>>>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>>>>>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
*There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
Re: Rocket
Posted by Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>.
If it ends up being not open, then we'd have to. But they're clearly not
going in that direction given they've already published it publicly and
have requested feedback.
I would strongly urge us to avoid this, however. A common spec is so much
stronger than any individual one.
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Arunabha Ghosh <ar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Should CoreOS decide to adopt a governance model which is not open or what
> the Mesos community wants, does it make sense to adopt the Rocket spec and
> evolve it along with Mesos ? Having a documented container spec for Mesos
> which can evolve along with Mesos would in some ways be better than perhaps
> adopting Rocket's spec.
>
> Arunabha
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I'll take the discussion to the GitHub issue.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> I actually can't remember is it on the github issue, email list or
>>> twitter feed, but definitely one of them.
>>>
>>> Tim St Clair just brought up Apache on #139, and I'm a +1 on that as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> Feel free to chime in on that Github issue you linked.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Tim C,
>>>>
>>>> Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say "Apache
>>>> is one of the options mentioned"?
>>>>
>>>> I don't see it it in the discussion thread for
>>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find
>>>> it and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see.
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>>
>>>>> Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear
>>>>> from the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day
>>>>> one. Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe
>>>>> something along that line is most probable.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to
>>>>> maintain as an containerizer option for us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> inline below
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *"Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>>> *To: *user@mesos.apache.org
>>>>> *Cc: *"dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: Rocket
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from
>>>>> their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point
>>>>> of the open container spec.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm all over this like white on rice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and
>>>>> continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the
>>>>> rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Relationships alone won't cut it.
>>>>> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with
>>>>> Docker...?
>>>>>
>>>>> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on
>>>>>> establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure
>>>>>> that we have say in the spec going forwards?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
>>>>>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>>>>> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>>>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>>>>>> > Subject: Re: Rocket
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a
>>>>>> spec
>>>>>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>>>>>> > Here is the spec:
>>>>>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>>>>>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes
>>>>>> it much
>>>>>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the
>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos
>>>>>> can use
>>>>>> > something else or come with its own.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <
>>>>>> dhamon@twopensource.com>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A
>>>>>> community is
>>>>>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>>>>>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to
>>>>>> improve it.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and
>>>>>> provide
>>>>>> > > value through a C++ implementation.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>>>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any
>>>>>> thoughts on
>>>>>> > > this.
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >> Hi all,
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>>>>>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>>>>>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components,
>>>>>> better
>>>>>> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where
>>>>>> in Mesos
>>>>>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been
>>>>>> experiencing some
>>>>>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image
>>>>>> distribution and
>>>>>> > >> security as well.
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new
>>>>>> Rocket
>>>>>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >> Thanks!
>>>>>> > >>
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> > > --
>>>>>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>>>>>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>>>>>> > >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
*There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
Re: Rocket
Posted by Arunabha Ghosh <ar...@gmail.com>.
Should CoreOS decide to adopt a governance model which is not open or what
the Mesos community wants, does it make sense to adopt the Rocket spec and
evolve it along with Mesos ? Having a documented container spec for Mesos
which can evolve along with Mesos would in some ways be better than perhaps
adopting Rocket's spec.
Arunabha
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, I'll take the discussion to the GitHub issue.
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> I actually can't remember is it on the github issue, email list or
>> twitter feed, but definitely one of them.
>>
>> Tim St Clair just brought up Apache on #139, and I'm a +1 on that as well.
>>
>> Feel free to chime in on that Github issue you linked.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Tim C,
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say "Apache
>>> is one of the options mentioned"?
>>>
>>> I don't see it it in the discussion thread for
>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find
>>> it and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>
>>>> Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear
>>>> from the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day
>>>> one. Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe
>>>> something along that line is most probable.
>>>>
>>>> As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to
>>>> maintain as an containerizer option for us.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> inline below
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From: *"Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>> *To: *user@mesos.apache.org
>>>> *Cc: *"dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
>>>> *Subject: *Re: Rocket
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>
>>>> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from
>>>> their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point
>>>> of the open container spec.
>>>>
>>>> I'm all over this like white on rice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and
>>>> continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the
>>>> rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
>>>>
>>>> Relationships alone won't cut it.
>>>> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with
>>>> Docker...?
>>>>
>>>> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on
>>>>> establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>>>>>
>>>>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure
>>>>> that we have say in the spec going forwards?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Tim
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
>>>>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>>>> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>>>>> > Subject: Re: Rocket
>>>>> >
>>>>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a
>>>>> spec
>>>>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>>>>> > Here is the spec:
>>>>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>>>>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it
>>>>> much
>>>>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the
>>>>> implementation of
>>>>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can
>>>>> use
>>>>> > something else or come with its own.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <
>>>>> dhamon@twopensource.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>>>>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A
>>>>> community is
>>>>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>>>>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to
>>>>> improve it.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and
>>>>> provide
>>>>> > > value through a C++ implementation.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any
>>>>> thoughts on
>>>>> > > this.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >> Hi all,
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>>>>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>>>>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components,
>>>>> better
>>>>> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where
>>>>> in Mesos
>>>>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been
>>>>> experiencing some
>>>>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image
>>>>> distribution and
>>>>> > >> security as well.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new
>>>>> Rocket
>>>>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our
>>>>> existing
>>>>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Thanks!
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > --
>>>>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>>>>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Arunabha Ghosh <ar...@gmail.com>.
Should CoreOS decide to adopt a governance model which is not open or what
the Mesos community wants, does it make sense to adopt the Rocket spec and
evolve it along with Mesos ? Having a documented container spec for Mesos
which can evolve along with Mesos would in some ways be better than perhaps
adopting Rocket's spec.
Arunabha
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, I'll take the discussion to the GitHub issue.
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> I actually can't remember is it on the github issue, email list or
>> twitter feed, but definitely one of them.
>>
>> Tim St Clair just brought up Apache on #139, and I'm a +1 on that as well.
>>
>> Feel free to chime in on that Github issue you linked.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Tim C,
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say "Apache
>>> is one of the options mentioned"?
>>>
>>> I don't see it it in the discussion thread for
>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find
>>> it and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>
>>>> Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear
>>>> from the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day
>>>> one. Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe
>>>> something along that line is most probable.
>>>>
>>>> As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to
>>>> maintain as an containerizer option for us.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> inline below
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *From: *"Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>> *To: *user@mesos.apache.org
>>>> *Cc: *"dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
>>>> *Subject: *Re: Rocket
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tim,
>>>>
>>>> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from
>>>> their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point
>>>> of the open container spec.
>>>>
>>>> I'm all over this like white on rice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and
>>>> continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the
>>>> rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
>>>>
>>>> Relationships alone won't cut it.
>>>> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with
>>>> Docker...?
>>>>
>>>> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on
>>>>> establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>>>>>
>>>>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure
>>>>> that we have say in the spec going forwards?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Tim
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
>>>>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>>>> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>>>>> > Subject: Re: Rocket
>>>>> >
>>>>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a
>>>>> spec
>>>>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>>>>> > Here is the spec:
>>>>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>>>>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it
>>>>> much
>>>>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the
>>>>> implementation of
>>>>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can
>>>>> use
>>>>> > something else or come with its own.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <
>>>>> dhamon@twopensource.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>>>>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A
>>>>> community is
>>>>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>>>>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to
>>>>> improve it.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and
>>>>> provide
>>>>> > > value through a C++ implementation.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any
>>>>> thoughts on
>>>>> > > this.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >> Hi all,
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>>>>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>>>>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components,
>>>>> better
>>>>> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where
>>>>> in Mesos
>>>>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been
>>>>> experiencing some
>>>>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image
>>>>> distribution and
>>>>> > >> security as well.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new
>>>>> Rocket
>>>>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our
>>>>> existing
>>>>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >> Thanks!
>>>>> > >>
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > --
>>>>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>>>>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, I'll take the discussion to the GitHub issue.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I actually can't remember is it on the github issue, email list or twitter
> feed, but definitely one of them.
>
> Tim St Clair just brought up Apache on #139, and I'm a +1 on that as well.
>
> Feel free to chime in on that Github issue you linked.
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Tim C,
>>
>> Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say "Apache
>> is one of the options mentioned"?
>>
>> I don't see it it in the discussion thread for
>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find it
>> and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Tim,
>>>
>>> Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear from
>>> the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day one.
>>> Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe
>>> something along that line is most probable.
>>>
>>> As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to
>>> maintain as an containerizer option for us.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> inline below
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From: *"Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>> *To: *user@mesos.apache.org
>>> *Cc: *"dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: Rocket
>>>
>>> Hi Tim,
>>>
>>> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from
>>> their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point
>>> of the open container spec.
>>>
>>> I'm all over this like white on rice.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and
>>> continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the
>>> rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
>>>
>>> Relationships alone won't cut it.
>>> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with
>>> Docker...?
>>>
>>> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on
>>>> establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>>>>
>>>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure
>>>> that we have say in the spec going forwards?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
>>>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>>> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>>>> > Subject: Re: Rocket
>>>> >
>>>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a
>>>> spec
>>>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>>>> > Here is the spec:
>>>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>>>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it
>>>> much
>>>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation
>>>> of
>>>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can
>>>> use
>>>> > something else or come with its own.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <
>>>> dhamon@twopensource.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>>>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A
>>>> community is
>>>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>>>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to
>>>> improve it.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and
>>>> provide
>>>> > > value through a C++ implementation.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any
>>>> thoughts on
>>>> > > this.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> Hi all,
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>>>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>>>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components,
>>>> better
>>>> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in
>>>> Mesos
>>>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been
>>>> experiencing some
>>>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image
>>>> distribution and
>>>> > >> security as well.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new
>>>> Rocket
>>>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our
>>>> existing
>>>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Thanks!
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > --
>>>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>>>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, I'll take the discussion to the GitHub issue.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I actually can't remember is it on the github issue, email list or twitter
> feed, but definitely one of them.
>
> Tim St Clair just brought up Apache on #139, and I'm a +1 on that as well.
>
> Feel free to chime in on that Github issue you linked.
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Tim C,
>>
>> Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say "Apache
>> is one of the options mentioned"?
>>
>> I don't see it it in the discussion thread for
>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find it
>> and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Tim,
>>>
>>> Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear from
>>> the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day one.
>>> Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe
>>> something along that line is most probable.
>>>
>>> As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to
>>> maintain as an containerizer option for us.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> inline below
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From: *"Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>> *To: *user@mesos.apache.org
>>> *Cc: *"dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: Rocket
>>>
>>> Hi Tim,
>>>
>>> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from
>>> their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point
>>> of the open container spec.
>>>
>>> I'm all over this like white on rice.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and
>>> continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the
>>> rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
>>>
>>> Relationships alone won't cut it.
>>> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with
>>> Docker...?
>>>
>>> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on
>>>> establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>>>>
>>>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure
>>>> that we have say in the spec going forwards?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
>>>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>>> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>>>> > Subject: Re: Rocket
>>>> >
>>>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a
>>>> spec
>>>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>>>> > Here is the spec:
>>>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>>>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it
>>>> much
>>>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation
>>>> of
>>>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can
>>>> use
>>>> > something else or come with its own.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <
>>>> dhamon@twopensource.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>>>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A
>>>> community is
>>>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>>>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to
>>>> improve it.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and
>>>> provide
>>>> > > value through a C++ implementation.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any
>>>> thoughts on
>>>> > > this.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> Hi all,
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>>>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>>>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components,
>>>> better
>>>> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in
>>>> Mesos
>>>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been
>>>> experiencing some
>>>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image
>>>> distribution and
>>>> > >> security as well.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new
>>>> Rocket
>>>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our
>>>> existing
>>>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Thanks!
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > --
>>>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>>>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>.
Hi Dave,
I actually can't remember is it on the github issue, email list or twitter
feed, but definitely one of them.
Tim St Clair just brought up Apache on #139, and I'm a +1 on that as well.
Feel free to chime in on that Github issue you linked.
Tim
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Tim C,
>
> Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say "Apache
> is one of the options mentioned"?
>
> I don't see it it in the discussion thread for
> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find it
> and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see.
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear from
>> the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day one.
>> Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe
>> something along that line is most probable.
>>
>> As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to
>> maintain as an containerizer option for us.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> inline below
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *From: *"Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
>> *To: *user@mesos.apache.org
>> *Cc: *"dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: Rocket
>>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from
>> their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point
>> of the open container spec.
>>
>> I'm all over this like white on rice.
>>
>>
>> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and
>> continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the
>> rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
>>
>> Relationships alone won't cut it.
>> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with
>> Docker...?
>>
>> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on
>>> establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>>>
>>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>>>
>>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure
>>> that we have say in the spec going forwards?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
>>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>>> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>>> > Subject: Re: Rocket
>>> >
>>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
>>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>>> > Here is the spec:
>>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it
>>> much
>>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation
>>> of
>>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can
>>> use
>>> > something else or come with its own.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dhamon@twopensource.com
>>> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A
>>> community is
>>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to
>>> improve it.
>>> > >
>>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and
>>> provide
>>> > > value through a C++ implementation.
>>> > >
>>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any
>>> thoughts on
>>> > > this.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Hi all,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components,
>>> better
>>> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in
>>> Mesos
>>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing
>>> some
>>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image
>>> distribution and
>>> > >> security as well.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our
>>> existing
>>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Thanks!
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Timothy St. Clair
>>> Red Hat Inc.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Timothy St. Clair
>> Red Hat Inc.
>>
>>
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com>.
Hey Tim C,
Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say "Apache
is one of the options mentioned"?
I don't see it it in the discussion thread for
https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find it
and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see.
Dave
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear from
> the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day one.
> Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe
> something along that line is most probable.
>
> As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to
> maintain as an containerizer option for us.
>
> Tim
>
> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> inline below
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
> *To: *user@mesos.apache.org
> *Cc: *"dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
> *Subject: *Re: Rocket
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from
> their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point
> of the open container spec.
>
> I'm all over this like white on rice.
>
>
> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and
> continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the
> rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
>
> Relationships alone won't cut it.
> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with
> Docker...?
>
> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
>
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on
>> establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>>
>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>>
>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that
>> we have say in the spec going forwards?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tim
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Rocket
>> >
>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>> > Here is the spec:
>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it
>> much
>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
>> > something else or come with its own.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A
>> community is
>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to
>> improve it.
>> > >
>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
>> > > value through a C++ implementation.
>> > >
>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any
>> thoughts on
>> > > this.
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi all,
>> > >>
>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components,
>> better
>> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>> > >>
>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in
>> Mesos
>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing
>> some
>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image
>> distribution and
>> > >> security as well.
>> > >>
>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our
>> existing
>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>> > >>
>> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks!
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Timothy St. Clair
>> Red Hat Inc.
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Timothy St. Clair
> Red Hat Inc.
>
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Dave Lester <da...@gmail.com>.
Hey Tim C,
Out of curiosity, which GitHub issue are you referring to when you say "Apache
is one of the options mentioned"?
I don't see it it in the discussion thread for
https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/139, but I would love to find it
and +1 the idea. Moving to Apache would be great to see.
Dave
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Timothy Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear from
> the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day one.
> Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe
> something along that line is most probable.
>
> As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to
> maintain as an containerizer option for us.
>
> Tim
>
> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> inline below
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
> *To: *user@mesos.apache.org
> *Cc: *"dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
> *Subject: *Re: Rocket
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from
> their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point
> of the open container spec.
>
> I'm all over this like white on rice.
>
>
> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and
> continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the
> rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
>
> Relationships alone won't cut it.
> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with
> Docker...?
>
> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
>
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on
>> establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>>
>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>>
>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that
>> we have say in the spec going forwards?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tim
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Rocket
>> >
>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>> > Here is the spec:
>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it
>> much
>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
>> > something else or come with its own.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A
>> community is
>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to
>> improve it.
>> > >
>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
>> > > value through a C++ implementation.
>> > >
>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any
>> thoughts on
>> > > this.
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi all,
>> > >>
>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components,
>> better
>> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>> > >>
>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in
>> Mesos
>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing
>> some
>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image
>> distribution and
>> > >> security as well.
>> > >>
>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our
>> existing
>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>> > >>
>> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks!
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Timothy St. Clair
>> Red Hat Inc.
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Timothy St. Clair
> Red Hat Inc.
>
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Timothy Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>.
Hi Tim,
Definitely I agree, i think what I am getting at is that it's clear from the conversation that a open governance is what they want from day one. Apache is one of the options mentioned one the Issue, and I believe something along that line is most probable.
As long as that's true it won't be as difficult as other options to maintain as an containerizer option for us.
Tim
> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> inline below
>
> From: "Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
> To: user@mesos.apache.org
> Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Rocket
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point of the open container spec.
> I'm all over this like white on rice.
>
> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
> Relationships alone won't cut it.
> Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with Docker...?
>
> Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
>
> Tim
>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>>
>> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>>
>> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that we have say in the spec going forwards?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tim
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
>> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
>> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Rocket
>> >
>> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
>> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>> > Here is the spec:
>> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
>> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
>> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
>> > something else or come with its own.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is
>> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it.
>> > >
>> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
>> > > value through a C++ implementation.
>> > >
>> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on
>> > > this.
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi all,
>> > >>
>> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>> > >>
>> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
>> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
>> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
>> > >> security as well.
>> > >>
>> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
>> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>> > >>
>> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks!
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Timothy St. Clair
>> Red Hat Inc.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Timothy St. Clair
> Red Hat Inc.
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com>.
inline below
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
> To: user@mesos.apache.org
> Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Rocket
> Hi Tim,
> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from their
> messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point of the
> open container spec.
I'm all over this like white on rice.
> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and continue
> to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the rocket
> people which should help also being in the loop as well.
Relationships alone won't cut it.
Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with Docker...?
Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
> Tim
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair < tstclair@redhat.com > wrote:
> > Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on
> > establishing
> > governance around the App Container spec?
>
> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>
> > If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that
> > we
> > have say in the spec going forwards?
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Tim
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > > From: "Tobias Knaup" < tobi@knaup.me >
>
> > > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>
> > > Cc: "dev" < dev@mesos.apache.org >
>
> > > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>
> > > Subject: Re: Rocket
>
> > >
>
> > > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
>
> > > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>
> > > Here is the spec:
>
> > > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>
> > > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
>
> > > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
>
> > > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
>
> > > something else or come with its own.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon < dhamon@twopensource.com >
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>
> > > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community
> > > > is
>
> > > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>
> > > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve
> > > > it.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
>
> > > > value through a C++ implementation.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts
> > > > on
>
> > > > this.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen < tim@mesosphere.io > wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > >> Hi all,
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>
> > > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/ ) , it seems to be an exciting
>
> > > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>
> > > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in
> > > >> Mesos
>
> > > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing
> > > >> some
>
> > > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution
> > > >> and
>
> > > >> security as well.
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>
> > > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our
> > > >> existing
>
> > > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >> Thanks!
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > --
>
> > > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>
> > > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > --
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Timothy St. Clair
>
> > Red Hat Inc.
>
--
Cheers,
Timothy St. Clair
Red Hat Inc.
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com>.
inline below
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
> To: user@mesos.apache.org
> Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:20:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Rocket
> Hi Tim,
> I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from their
> messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point of the
> open container spec.
I'm all over this like white on rice.
> I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and continue
> to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the rocket
> people which should help also being in the loop as well.
Relationships alone won't cut it.
Friends one day, enemies the next, isn't that the way it worked with Docker...?
Governance, such as Apaches model, is of critical importance.
> Tim
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair < tstclair@redhat.com > wrote:
> > Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on
> > establishing
> > governance around the App Container spec?
>
> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>
> > If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that
> > we
> > have say in the spec going forwards?
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Tim
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > > From: "Tobias Knaup" < tobi@knaup.me >
>
> > > To: user@mesos.apache.org
>
> > > Cc: "dev" < dev@mesos.apache.org >
>
> > > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
>
> > > Subject: Re: Rocket
>
> > >
>
> > > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
>
> > > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
>
> > > Here is the spec:
>
> > > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
>
> > > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
>
> > > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
>
> > > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
>
> > > something else or come with its own.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon < dhamon@twopensource.com >
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>
> > > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community
> > > > is
>
> > > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>
> > > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve
> > > > it.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
>
> > > > value through a C++ implementation.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I've created a JIRA ticket
>
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts
> > > > on
>
> > > > this.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen < tim@mesosphere.io > wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > >> Hi all,
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>
> > > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/ ) , it seems to be an exciting
>
> > > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>
> > > >> security and image specification/distribution.
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in
> > > >> Mesos
>
> > > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing
> > > >> some
>
> > > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution
> > > >> and
>
> > > >> security as well.
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>
> > > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our
> > > >> existing
>
> > > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >> Like to learn what you all think,
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >> Thanks!
>
> > > >>
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > --
>
> > > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>
> > > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> > --
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Timothy St. Clair
>
> > Red Hat Inc.
>
--
Cheers,
Timothy St. Clair
Red Hat Inc.
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>.
Hi Tim,
I see you've already commented on the rocket repo about this, and from
their messaging it aims to be independent which should be the whole point
of the open container spec.
I think the best way is just to be involved in the spec early on and
continue to do so while we move forward, and we have relationships with the
rocket people which should help also being in the loop as well.
Tim
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on
> establishing governance around the App Container spec?
>
> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
>
> If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that
> we have say in the spec going forwards?
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
> > To: user@mesos.apache.org
> > Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: Rocket
> >
> > An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
> > (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
> > Here is the spec:
> > https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
> > This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
> > easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
> > the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
> > something else or come with its own.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
> > > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community
> is
> > > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
> > > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve
> it.
> > >
> > > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
> > > value through a C++ implementation.
> > >
> > > I've created a JIRA ticket
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any
> thoughts on
> > > this.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> > >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
> > >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
> > >> security and image specification/distribution.
> > >>
> > >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in
> Mesos
> > >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing
> some
> > >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image
> distribution and
> > >> security as well.
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> > >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our
> existing
> > >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
> > >>
> > >> Like to learn what you all think,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
> > > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Timothy St. Clair
> Red Hat Inc.
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com>.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on establishing governance around the App Container spec?
https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that we have say in the spec going forwards?
Cheers,
Tim
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
> To: user@mesos.apache.org
> Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Rocket
>
> An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
> (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
> Here is the spec:
> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
> This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
> easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
> the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
> something else or come with its own.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
> > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is
> > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
> > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it.
> >
> > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
> > value through a C++ implementation.
> >
> > I've created a JIRA ticket
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on
> > this.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
> >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
> >> security and image specification/distribution.
> >>
> >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
> >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
> >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
> >> security as well.
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
> >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
> >>
> >> Like to learn what you all think,
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
> > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
> >
>
--
Cheers,
Timothy St. Clair
Red Hat Inc.
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com>.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but how are folks planning on establishing governance around the App Container spec?
https://github.com/coreos/rocket/issues/193
If the mesos community decides to leverage our own, how do we ensure that we have say in the spec going forwards?
Cheers,
Tim
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tobias Knaup" <to...@knaup.me>
> To: user@mesos.apache.org
> Cc: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 11:39:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Rocket
>
> An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
> (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
> Here is the spec:
> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
> This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
> easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
> the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
> something else or come with its own.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
> > instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is
> > always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
> > specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it.
> >
> > Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
> > value through a C++ implementation.
> >
> > I've created a JIRA ticket
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on
> > this.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> >> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
> >> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
> >> security and image specification/distribution.
> >>
> >> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
> >> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
> >> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
> >> security as well.
> >>
> >> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> >> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
> >> isolators into Rocket runtime.
> >>
> >> Like to learn what you all think,
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
> > *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
> >
>
--
Cheers,
Timothy St. Clair
Red Hat Inc.
Re: Rocket
Posted by Timothy Chen <tn...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Tobias for clarifying this, we can consider implement and help
shape the spec that is easy for Mesos to integrate.
Tim
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Tobias Knaup <to...@knaup.me> wrote:
> An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
> (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
> Here is the spec:
> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
> This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
> easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
> the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
> something else or come with its own.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>> instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is
>> always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>> specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it.
>>
>> Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
>> value through a C++ implementation.
>>
>> I've created a JIRA ticket
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on
>> this.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>>> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>>> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>>> security and image specification/distribution.
>>>
>>> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
>>> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
>>> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
>>> security as well.
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>>> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
>>> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>>
>>> Like to learn what you all think,
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>> *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Timothy Chen <tn...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Tobias for clarifying this, we can consider implement and help
shape the spec that is easy for Mesos to integrate.
Tim
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Tobias Knaup <to...@knaup.me> wrote:
> An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
> (App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
> Here is the spec:
> https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
> This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
> easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
> the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
> something else or come with its own.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
>> instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is
>> always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
>> specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it.
>>
>> Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
>> value through a C++ implementation.
>>
>> I've created a JIRA ticket
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on
>> this.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>>> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>>> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>>> security and image specification/distribution.
>>>
>>> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
>>> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
>>> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
>>> security as well.
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>>> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
>>> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>>
>>> Like to learn what you all think,
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
>> *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tobias Knaup <to...@knaup.me>.
An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
(App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
Here is the spec:
https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
something else or come with its own.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
wrote:
> Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
> instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is
> always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
> specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it.
>
> Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
> value through a C++ implementation.
>
> I've created a JIRA ticket
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on
> this.
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>> security and image specification/distribution.
>>
>> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
>> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
>> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
>> security as well.
>>
>> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
>> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>
>> Like to learn what you all think,
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
> *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tobias Knaup <to...@knaup.me>.
An important point to clarify is that two things were announced: a spec
(App Container) and an implementation (Rocket).
Here is the spec:
https://github.com/coreos/rocket/blob/master/app-container/SPEC.md
This separation of spec and implementation is important. It makes it much
easier to integrate in Mesos. systemd is also just the implementation of
the runtime part of the spec that CoreOS chose for Rocket. Mesos can use
something else or come with its own.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>
wrote:
> Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should
> instead consider how we can implement their specification. A community is
> always healthier when there are multiple implementations of a
> specification, and through implementing it we may find ways to improve it.
>
> Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
> value through a C++ implementation.
>
> I've created a JIRA ticket
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162 to track any thoughts on
> this.
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
>> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
>> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
>> security and image specification/distribution.
>>
>> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
>> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
>> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
>> security as well.
>>
>> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
>> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
>> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>>
>> Like to learn what you all think,
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
> *There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>.
Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should instead
consider how we can implement their specification. A community is always
healthier when there are multiple implementations of a specification, and
through implementing it we may find ways to improve it.
Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
value through a C++ implementation.
I've created a JIRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162
to track any thoughts on this.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
> security and image specification/distribution.
>
> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
> security as well.
>
> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>
> Like to learn what you all think,
>
> Thanks!
>
--
Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
*There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
Re: Rocket
Posted by Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly>.
cool, yeah +1
The more container options means the more you need a solution like Mesos to
run them all in =8^) ... or be able to run apps without them too...
fantastic!
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Niklas Nielsen <ni...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Huge +1
>
> On 1 December 2014 at 11:10, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> > https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
> > containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
> > security and image specification/distribution.
> >
> > All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
> > we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
> > pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution
> and
> > security as well.
> >
> > I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> > containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
> > isolators into Rocket runtime.
> >
> > Like to learn what you all think,
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Joe Stein <jo...@stealth.ly>.
cool, yeah +1
The more container options means the more you need a solution like Mesos to
run them all in =8^) ... or be able to run apps without them too...
fantastic!
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Niklas Nielsen <ni...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Huge +1
>
> On 1 December 2014 at 11:10, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> > https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
> > containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
> > security and image specification/distribution.
> >
> > All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
> > we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
> > pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution
> and
> > security as well.
> >
> > I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> > containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
> > isolators into Rocket runtime.
> >
> > Like to learn what you all think,
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Steven Schlansker <ss...@opentable.com>.
On Dec 1, 2014, at 11:22 AM, Niklas Nielsen <ni...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Huge +1
>
> On 1 December 2014 at 11:10, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image specification/distribution.
>
> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and security as well.
>
> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing isolators into Rocket runtime.
>
> Like to learn what you all think,
We too are using Docker and find the monolithic nature to be obnoxious at times. If Rocket were easy to run side-by-side I'd certainly give it a whirl and switch to it if it works at least as well.
Re: Rocket
Posted by Niklas Nielsen <ni...@mesosphere.io>.
Huge +1
On 1 December 2014 at 11:10, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
> security and image specification/distribution.
>
> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
> security as well.
>
> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>
> Like to learn what you all think,
>
> Thanks!
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Dominic Hamon <dh...@twopensource.com>.
Instead of considering the Rocket runtime as implemented, we should instead
consider how we can implement their specification. A community is always
healthier when there are multiple implementations of a specification, and
through implementing it we may find ways to improve it.
Also, this allows us to be a strong voice in the community and provide
value through a C++ implementation.
I've created a JIRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2162
to track any thoughts on this.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
> security and image specification/distribution.
>
> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
> security as well.
>
> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>
> Like to learn what you all think,
>
> Thanks!
>
--
Dominic Hamon | @mrdo | Twitter
*There are no bad ideas; only good ideas that go horribly wrong.*
Re: Rocket
Posted by Niklas Nielsen <ni...@mesosphere.io>.
Huge +1
On 1 December 2014 at 11:10, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
> security and image specification/distribution.
>
> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
> security as well.
>
> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>
> Like to learn what you all think,
>
> Thanks!
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by "Heller, Chris" <ch...@akamai.com>.
This does sound promising. Though if it restricts one to hosts using systemd
than I don¹t see much value in it over Docker. However no need to preclude
it on choice of init process alone, plus it exercises the ContainerInfo
structure some more. +1
From: Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io>
Reply-To: "user@mesos.apache.org" <us...@mesos.apache.org>
Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 at 2:10 PM
To: dev <de...@mesos.apache.org>, "user@mesos.apache.org"
<us...@mesos.apache.org>
Subject: Rocket
Hi all,
Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket
(https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer
runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image
specification/distribution.
All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we
also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain
points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
security as well.
I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
isolators into Rocket runtime.
Like to learn what you all think,
Thanks!
Re: Rocket
Posted by Jie Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
Sounds great Tim!
Do you know if they have published an API for the rocket toolset? Are we
gonna rely on the command line interface?
- Jie
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Tim Chen <ti...@mesosphere.io> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/) , it seems to be an exciting
> containerizer runtime that has composable isolation/components, better
> security and image specification/distribution.
>
> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos
> we also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some
> pain points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
> security as well.
>
> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
> isolators into Rocket runtime.
>
> Like to learn what you all think,
>
> Thanks!
>
Re: Rocket
Posted by Tim St Clair <ts...@redhat.com>.
Absolutely...
Cheers,
Tim
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Chen" <ti...@mesosphere.io>
> To: "dev" <de...@mesos.apache.org>, user@mesos.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 1:10:44 PM
> Subject: Rocket
> Hi all,
> Per the announcement from CoreOS about Rocket (
> https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/ ) , it seems to be an exciting containerizer
> runtime that has composable isolation/components, better security and image
> specification/distribution.
> All of these design goals also fits very well into Mesos, where in Mesos we
> also have a pluggable isolators model and have been experiencing some pain
> points with our existing containerizers around image distribution and
> security as well.
> I'd like to propose to integrate Rocket into Mesos with a new Rocket
> containerizer, where I can see we can potentially integrate our existing
> isolators into Rocket runtime.
> Like to learn what you all think,
> Thanks!
--
Cheers,
Timothy St. Clair
Red Hat Inc.