Proposal for volume/storage support for opencompose #79
Conversation
surajssd
changed the title
docs/proposals/volumes-proposal.md
Outdated
| volumes: | ||
| - name: db | ||
| path: /app/store | ||
| access: ro |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is binary options, it can be only ro or rw. How about changing it to something that reflects this more?
For example readOnly that can boolean, and if not set that false.
docs/proposals/volumes-proposal.md
Outdated
| volumes: | ||
| - name: db | ||
| path: /app/store | ||
| access: ro |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how about mode?
access is a bit confusing, no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
changed it to accessMode: ReadWriteMany
docs/proposals/volumes-proposal.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| volumes: | ||
| - name: db | ||
| size: 5Gib |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
let's make sure we support GiB, GB, G, MiB, MB, M, etc
docs/proposals/volumes-proposal.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| `ro` -> `ReadOnlyMany` | ||
| `rw` -> `ReadWriteOnce` | ||
| `rwm` -> `ReadWriteMany` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Made it as k8s has it
docs/proposals/volumes-proposal.md
Outdated
| - `volumeName`: (required field, type: *string*) name of volume from root level `volumes` directive or `service` level `emptyDirVolumes` directive. | ||
| - `mountPath`: (required field, type: *string*) This will be mapped to `pod.spec.containers.volumeMounts.mountPath` in `deployment`. | ||
| - `volumeSubPath`: (optional field, type: *string*) This will be mapped to `pod.spec.containers.volumeMounts.subPath` in `deployment`. | ||
| - `readOnly`: (optional field, type: *bool*, default: false) This will be mapped to `pod.spec.containers.volumeMounts.readOnly` in `deployment`. **TODO**: How does this map to the `accessMode` in root level `volumes`? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it is not related to accessMode; those are two completely separate things
docs/proposals/volumes-proposal.md
Outdated
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
| src: http://blog.kubernetes.io/2016/10/dynamic-provisioning-and-storage-in-kubernetes.html | ||
| - `reclaimPolicy`: (optional field, type: *string*) **TODO**: No field in `pvc`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh my bad 😊
we shouldn't have reclaimPolicy here. This is PersistentVolume property, so we don't have to worry about that.
surajssd
force-pushed
the
storage-proposal
branch
from
5356b19 to
63c5116
Compare
docs/proposals/volumes-proposal.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| - `name`: (required field, type: *string*) name of volume, which is referenced from containers for mounting. `pvc` will be created with this name. | ||
| - `size`: (required field, type: *string*) In `pvc` this will be put in `pvc.spec.resources.requests` | ||
| - `accessMode`: (optional field, type: *string*) In `pvc` this will turn into `pvc.spec.accessModes`. The possible values of this field could be: `ReadOnlyMany`, `ReadWriteOnce` or `ReadWriteMany`. **TODO**: Decide default value because `pvc.spec.accessModes` is a required field. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe we should do it as required field for now. We can decide on default later.
|
I think we can keep all proposal docs like this in |
|
@kadel sure |
|
@kadel ping |
|
should this be squashed before merge? or should we keep it as it is to retain history? |
This is a proposal of how the volume definition in opencompose should look like.
@kadel squashed |
This is a proposal of how the volume definition in opencompose should look like.