Re: Config Mgmt Proposal V2

Trevor.Conn@...
 

Dell Customer Communication

Hi Steve – Replying to your questions below.

 

·         I think our assumption is that yes, the registry is specific to EdgeX since it is inside of the security boundary.

·         The “exf” prefix was brought up on last week’s Core WG call and was suggested because the LF apparently has a trademark on using this term as it applies to EdgeX. Tony also wanted something short, so there it is.

·         “export” as high level category – I would suggest we let some of the discussions / direction in the Application WG mature a bit, but this could be where we put their configuration. I think the current export services should stay under efx, partly because I don’t see them moving out of the mono-repo and operating independently.

·         w/r/t your points on the “devices” section, this is totally your group’s call. We’ve decided that device services will bootstrap their own config, and they need a bucket in which to do that so we proposed “devices”. However you’d like to structure the configuration underneath is fine with me as this is independent of anything the config-seed will be doing.

 

Trevor

 

From: Steve Osselton [mailto:steve@...]
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2018 4:03 AM
To: Conn, Trevor
Cc: edgex-tsc-core@...; edgex-tsc-devops@...
Subject: Re: [Edgex-tsc-devops] Config Mgmt Proposal V2

 

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]

Hi Trevor,

 

Good stuff. Some comments:

 

- Are we assuming that the registry is unique to EdgeX ? If not (i.e. potentially shared with other software

systems), then perhaps all settings should be scoped at the top level to "edgex".

 

- Why "efx' and not just "core"

 

- Think also need "export" as a high level category, as like devices in the future may be multiple instances.

 

- Presuming that everything under "devices" is a device instance name as may be deploying multiple instances

of the same device type.

 

- If have a typed category "devices" then naming things "device-xxx" under this seems like a device too far,

i.e can just be devices/mqtt-xxx etc.

 

- Might be worth considering allowing device instance names to hierarchical. Recently looked at a buildings

management system, where all devices were scoped based on location i.e. "building5/floor3/conf_room_1/heating controller".

Having devices in a flat structure is not going to scale and does not support deployment specific device hierarchy.

 

Cheers Steve.

 

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 23:28, <Trevor.Conn@...> wrote:

Hi folks -- I've attached version 2 of the configuration proposal which has edits based on received comments to V1 and also our discussions in the Core Working Group meetings. In the section on versioning, I've tried to align with the proposal regarding releases and versioning being circulated by Jim White.

 

I look forward to any comments you may have.

 

Trevor Conn
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Dell Technologies | IoT DellTech
Trevor_Conn@...
Round Rock, TX  USA


 

--

Technical Director

IOTech Systems Ltd.

Join EdgeX-TSC-DevOps@lists.edgexfoundry.org to automatically receive all group messages.