Reimplement local VM provider #205

temujin9 opened this Issue Oct 31, 2012 · 4 comments


None yet
2 participants

temujin9 commented Oct 31, 2012

Ironfan v3 had a (somewhat magic) Vagrant implementation. Given that Vagrant now has the beginnings of underlying provider abstraction, it appears to remain the correct choice for a local VM provider, rather than going direct to the underlying providers (Virtualbox, VMware Fusion, etc.).

@ghost ghost assigned temujin9 Oct 31, 2012


schade commented Nov 2, 2012

Looking at fog it supports virtualbox vmfusion vsphere and xenserver for virtual machines; so is there any real need for vagrant? Furthermore, vagrant's machine abstraction is still hard-coded to virtualbox because there's no config structure for anything else; and no real plans for how to implement these, at present.


temujin9 commented Nov 2, 2012

Agreed, upon further examination:

  • Fog provides stable abstractions that we're already familiar with, and covers much ground
  • Vagrant has only recently added its abstractions, and is a user-focused tool (rather than a library)

We would be trading a well-known and broadly applicable but leaky abstraction, for an unknown and immature abstraction with only one target and intended for a different use-case.


ghost commented Jul 13, 2013

Is there a status update on this? Having 1:1 support for a VirtualBox:EC2 cluster would be huge!


temujin9 commented Jul 13, 2013

Unfortunately, it's paused behind paying work. If you know of a company who could sponsor this as a feature, let me know; that can bump it's priority quite a bit.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment