Add a roadmap and vision doc for cdevents #9
Conversation
Add a roadmap doc for cdevents that include the mission and vision for the project too. Signed-off-by: Andrea Frittoli <[email protected]>
roadmap.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| The mission of CDEvents project is: | ||
|
|
||
| > Provide interoperability in the continuous delivery ecosystem through a common events format |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would it make sense to call this a protocol rather than a format?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I steered away from the term protocol on purpose because I didn't want to give the impression that we're re-inventing CloudEvents or MQTT which is a common question I've got on cdevents.
That said I do like the term protocol so I'm open to suggestion about how to use the word and avoid confusion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the word specification better to use?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't want to give the impression that we're re-inventing
CloudEventsorMQTTwhich is a common question I've got on cdevents
couldn't this protocol be seen as an extended/enriched/ version of CloudEvents assuming CD events will stay compliant with CloudEvents so calling this a protocol still makes sense to me.
But I also understand your concern so I'm fine either way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I agree the term "protocol" is appropriate, and that's what I used to call it in fact - the only reason I changed term is because I noticed it triggered some confusion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I switched back to "protocol"
|
|
||
| - Capture our key use cases and design decisions in the [CDEvents primer](primer.md) document | ||
| - Develop the spec to fully support our [key use cases](#use-cases) | ||
| - Validate and demonstrate the spec through proofs-of-concept |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could this be called "reference implementation" so whoever wants to adhere to the protocol can use what is implemented by CD Events as reference?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Our proofs of concept would not be reference implementations of the spec, that will be in the SDK instead.
They could be seen as reference architectures - but I'd like to make it clear that we plan to go beyond diagram and slides.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would agree with @afrittoli that the POC is not a reference implementation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I should have said "would you think of having reference implementations in addition to PoCs?".
The reason why I ask this is that I may be using certain pipeline technologies A and B which may not have adapted CD Events but if CD Events could have a reference implementation (or deployments which I should probably have used originally) for the technologies C and D, I could look at them to get A and B on par with C and D so what I'm after is more than and addition to SDKs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Well, ideally we'd like to help projects produce cdevents natively, but the reality is that for the PoCs we'll probably need some "adapters" - like we had for the initial PoC which would translate Keptn messages into cdevents and back.
Maintaining these kind of adapters as general purpose reference implementations is bit beyond our capacity as a community right now, but we could definitely host them in the project if we had the contributors for them.
I will add a note about this to the roadmap.
roadmap.md
Outdated
| - Capture our key use cases and design decisions in the [CDEvents primer](primer.md) document | ||
| - Develop the spec to fully support our [key use cases](primer.md#use-cases) | ||
| - Validate and demonstrate the spec through proofs-of-concept | ||
| - Specify and rework the CloudEvents binding, re-create the SDK for the `go` language |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be overkill to also aim for having a Python SDK this year? I would be willing to contribute to it, and I have some colleagues who should be able to spend some time on it as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added it to the roadmap
Include the work on reference implementations, or "adapters" that will be required to produce / consume cdevents in various platforms. Relocate the use cases to the primer.md document. Signed-off-by: Andrea Frittoli <[email protected]>
|
Thanks, as discussed in the WG, I'm going to merge this. |
Add a roadmap doc for cdevents that include the mission and vision
for the project too.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Frittoli [email protected]