Phase 1 of Workspace.Next implementation

[skabashnyuk]

Description

As announced here #8265 (comment)
Goals of Phase 1 will be

• We will store features list in workspace 6 attributes
• We will teach Kubernetes/Openshift infrastructures to adjust workspace runtime with containers that are come from features. Workspace.next step1 - infrastructure implementation redhat-developer/rh-che#610
• Workspace.Next/Phase 1 - CheService/CheFeature model Workspace.Next/Phase 1 - CheService/CheFeature model #9292
• Here Workspace.Next/Phase 1 - CheService/CheFeature model #9292 we are going to discuss object details
• Initial feature and service list Initial feature and service list  #9408
• Not able to run eclipse/che-theia-* plugins in Che Theia stack Not able to run eclipse/che-theia-* plugins in Che Theia stack #9481
• Implement GET methods for features and services Implement GET methods for features and services #9491
• Create CQ for golang dependencies for a server that provides features and services Create CQ for golang dependencies for a server that provides features and services #9844

[garagatyi]

We figured out that we had different understandings of how Che tooling containers should run in Workspace.Next.
I tried to put all the tooling containers into a single pod since these containers might need to mount the same volume to access files.
The Mario added that we should add tooling containers into the POD from the user's recipe since a user might need sources of the application run in that pod while they are edited in tooling containers.
On the other hand what if a user has 2 pods, in which pod we should add tooling containers?
Should we enforce the user to use a single pod? Or maybe we can allow a user to use several pods but ask him to choose a pod in which we will run tooling containers.
BTW we should not use just pod notion here because Che might run workspaces on the Docker infrastructure.

@gorkem @l0rd @skabashnyuk WDYT?

[skabashnyuk]

@garagatyi I think in Phase 1 we should go in the easiest direction we can. If it's a requirement to have only 1 pod then let's go in this way.

[garagatyi]

We might want to include next issues to this epic:
#9870
#9871

@slemeur WDYT?

[slemeur]

Yes you are right @garagatyi, the issues you created should be considered in this epic.

[garagatyi]

Create CQ for golang dependencies for a server that provides features and services

I believe that we don't have to put this server under Eclipse foundation for the time, so this might not be mandatory for this phase.