You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@deltacloud.apache.org by "Koper, Dies" <di...@fast.au.fujitsu.com> on 2012/03/02 01:46:46 UTC
combining automatic state transistions with actioned transistions OK?
Please review this subset of transitions for FGCP. Is the
pending->:finish valid here?
start.to( :pending ) .on( :create ) # new instances do
not start automatically
pending.to( :stopped ) .automatically # after creation
they are in a stopped state
pending.to( :finish ) .on(:destroy) # after creation
they can be destroyed
stopped.to(:finish) .on( :destroy ) # only destroy
removes an instance, and it has to be stopped first
If 'pending' transitions to :stopped automatically, the user wouldn't
have a chance to action :destroy on it, so I suppose only the fourth
transition is possible. Should I remove pending->:finish?
What confused me is the following in ec2 driver:
pending.to( :running ) .automatically
pending.to( :stopping ) .on( :stop )
pending.to( :stopped ) .automatically
How can a state automatically transition to two opposite states, and at
the same time allowing a user to action on it?
Thanks,
Dies
Re: combining automatic state transistions with actioned transistions
OK?
Posted by "marios@redhat.com" <ma...@redhat.com>.
On 02/03/12 02:46, Koper, Dies wrote:
> Please review this subset of transitions for FGCP. Is the
> pending->:finish valid here?
>
> start.to( :pending ) .on( :create ) # new instances do
> not start automatically
> pending.to( :stopped ) .automatically # after creation
> they are in a stopped state
> pending.to( :finish ) .on(:destroy) # after creation
> they can be destroyed
> stopped.to(:finish) .on( :destroy ) # only destroy
> removes an instance, and it has to be stopped first
>
see my reply to your other e-mail here... it is hard to gage whether
this is 'correct' - this depends entirely on FGCP. My advice is to get
the driver out and wait for comments from other FGCP users.
> If 'pending' transitions to :stopped automatically, the user wouldn't
> have a chance to action :destroy on it, so I suppose only the fourth
> transition is possible. Should I remove pending->:finish?
>
> What confused me is the following in ec2 driver:
>
> pending.to( :running ) .automatically
> pending.to( :stopping ) .on( :stop )
> pending.to( :stopped ) .automatically
>
> How can a state automatically transition to two opposite states, and at
yes, the ec2 driver is a special case because EC2 supports both
stateless (instance-store backed) and stateful (ebs backed) instances;
there is an ongoing discussion as to how to handle this case.
marios
> the same time allowing a user to action on it?
>
> Thanks,
> Dies
>