[sakai2-tcc] Infrastructure discussion for future meeting?

[Noah Botimer]

I do not see this as threadjacking at all. I see it as a small community victory.

We've identified an important (long-standing) area that someone is working in. We know who is thinking about it, what they're up to, how to provide input or assistance, and we've normalized a few expectations across three of our most established SCAs and a couple of our most established schools -- in the course of a few hours as opposed to wandering in the darkness for a few months of planning in the abstract for potential resource application to some yet-to-be-named, awesomely planned and staffed project.

If anyone thinks that is a misuse of an already wild thread, I will strenuously dissent. This is the best traffic on the TCC list in over a year. :-)

Thanks,
-Noah

On Mar 13, 2013, at 2:25 PM, John Bush wrote:

> Right, I get that.  I guess I'm a little torn here.  I think David
> last comments are on mark, to really get Sakai to the next level in
> terms of scale and reliability we need to start componentizing things.
> There's a point when moving towards that makes the architecture much
> more complicated and catering to the small guy becomes harder.  I
> think if possible I would to prefer one solution that scales, so that
> you don't need to switch your whole architecture when you hit some
> point, that is what I think for example ElasticSearch brought to the
> table regarding search, it works for the small guy and the big guy.
> There is giant loss of focus that we have historically suffered from
> making things work in 18 different ways.  I mean everyone that runs on
> mysql and has to figure out how to get Oracle up and running knows
> what I'm talking about. Its a giant pain, and often things get done
> half done because of it.
> 
> I think I have enough to churn on here for awhile, I didn't mean to
> highjack this thread, its just this is one thing I've been focused on
> for awhile, and I want to see it move forward.  I think I'll spend
> some time thinking and then come back when maybe I have some ideas
> that will hit everyone's needs and maybe try to articulate the problem
> space a bit more.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Aaron Zeckoski <azeckoski at unicon.net> wrote:
>> Mostly I mean running in the same tomcat (think the Sakai demo). If it
>> won't work as part of the Sakai binary/demo then that's a non-starter
>> IMO.
>> -AZ
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:04 PM, David Adams <da1 at vt.edu> wrote:
>>> Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
>>>> Personally, I would except that any major functionality would work (1)
>>>> on a basic single server installation and also would work (2) on a
>>>> multiple tomcats installations and finally could optionally work (3)
>>>> with a separate server (for the really big installations). I don't
>>>> think options that don't support at least 1 and 2 are suitable for
>>>> core Sakai (as a contrib thing, sure).
>>> 
>>> This makes sense. But by "single server" do you mean "single process"?
>>> If the MQ server could run in a simple pre-defined config on localhost
>>> is that too far to tread?
>>> 
>>> -dave
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sakai2-tcc mailing list
>>> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Aaron Zeckoski - Software Architect - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile
> 
> 
> 
> --
> John Bush
> 602-490-0470
> _______________________________________________
> sakai2-tcc mailing list
> sakai2-tcc at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai2-tcc