Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Generators #34

Open
1 task
its02003 opened this issue Jun 17, 2021 · 7 comments
Open
1 task

Generators #34

its02003 opened this issue Jun 17, 2021 · 7 comments
Milestone

Comments

@its02003
Copy link

its02003 commented Jun 17, 2021

Did the concept of platform specific generators ever come up with regards to oslo?

It would be nice to see a community supported set of assets for transforming OpenSLO compliant SLOs into operational measures on Splunk, Dynatrace, etc etc

I feel like most implementations will create these anyways, so why not make it open... thinking like a "galaxy" style or something. Happy to work out a few initial implementations if people think its a good idea to include in the scope of the project.

If not, would really love to hear why.

Prereqs before Generators can be discussed

  • Stabilize spec
@ian-bartholomew
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah, this is something that we are talking about. It would be great to have olso be able to generate SLOs.

@its02003
Copy link
Author

@ian-bartholomew It generates some interesting discussion around spec constructs, as I mentioned in OpenSLO/OpenSLO#29 , there might need to be a bit more consistency in the constructs of the spec in order to be able to allow the spec to translate to actionable SLOs for platforms, and vice versa.

Additionally, I think this may lead back to the discussion that led to you creating OpenSLO/OpenSLO#27 as well

@ian-bartholomew
Copy link
Contributor

@its02003 yeah, you are correct. We have a number of prerequisites to address before we can do it

@its02003
Copy link
Author

Mind if we list those in this issue? We can build out the list as we identify more

@its02003
Copy link
Author

@ian-bartholomew thoughts on the idea of tracking the prerequisites here?

@ian-bartholomew
Copy link
Contributor

@its02003 i think the primary prerequisite is that we need to get the spec in a more stable place. While we are working on the early iterations there's a lot in flight. I'm trying to track as many of those issues in the spec repo. Thanks!

@its02003
Copy link
Author

@ian-bartholomew I added this as a pre-requisite on the issue. I think it might make sense to spend a moment defining what is considered unstable about the spec and when it might be considered "stable"

@ian-bartholomew ian-bartholomew added this to the v1.0.0 milestone Jul 15, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants