Date   
CF Application Runtime PMC: UAA Project Lead Call for Nominations

Eric Malm
 

Hi, everyone,

Sree Tummidi, the Project Lead for the UAA team within the Application Runtime PMC, has stepped down from the project. We thank her immensely for her many years of service as the UAA Project Lead, and for her enormous contributions to identity and security issues within the Cloud Foundry community. She will be missed tremendously.

The UAA team, based in San Francisco, now has an opening for its project lead. Project leads must be nominated by a Cloud Foundry Foundation member. Please send nominations directly to me or in reply to this message no later than 11:59 PM PST on Monday, April 22, 2019.

Also, if you have any questions about the role or the nomination process, as described in the CFF governance documents (https://www.cloudfoundry.org/governance/cff_development_operations_policy/), please let me know.

Thanks,
Eric Malm, CF Application Runtime PMC Lead

NOTICE: End of support for Ruby versions 2.2.x and 2.3.x after 2019-05-11

Elliott Shanks
 

The first release of the Ruby buildpack after May 11, 2019 will no longer include any versions of Ruby 2.2.x and 2.3.x. These Ruby versions are no longer supported upstream [1]. Please migrate your Ruby apps to supported versions of Ruby before that time.


Note: Unless you are manually specifying a version of Ruby for the buildpack to use, or you have customized your Ruby buildpack, no action is required.


[1] https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/branches/


Thanks,

Elliott Shanks, CF Buildpacks PM

REQUEST for REVIEW - Scope for CF-Deployment 8.0

Saikiran Yerram <syerram@...>
 

Good day everyone,

Let me first introduce myself. My name is Sai and I am the new PM on Release Integration team. I am super excited to be here and also about the upcoming major cf-deployment release.

I'd like to share and gather feedback on proposed scope of the next major release of cf-deployment. Please note that removal of cflinuxfs2 cannot be postponed, since Canonical will no longer support Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (Trusty) after April 2019.

This Google doc describes the high-level changes.


Anyone with the link above can review and comment. Please take some time to peruse it and comment directly within the doc when you have a moment.

Lastly, if you've got upcoming breaking changes for cf-deployment that Release Integration should be aware of, please bring them to my and the team's attention:
Best regards,

--
Saikiran Yerram
PM - CF R&D Release Integration

REMINDER CAB call for April live today @ CF Summit Room 116 @ 11a Philly time

Michael Maximilien
 

FYI... 

Same time 8a Pacific or 11a EST and also streamed on zoom.  Room 116 at the Philadelphia convention center.


So join remotely if you can or if you are at CF Summit but can’t make it to the room.

Also, no set agenda. Just open discussions.

See / zoom you soon. Best,


dr.max
ibm ☁ 
silicon valley, ca


Re: Buildpack deep dive questions...

José Riguera López
 

I have a kind of same issue as you trying to understand how a buildpack works and creating a new one. The golang library used in the official buildpacks has no documentation, so it makes really difficult starting from zero, specially if we are talking of something which should be a "helper".
I made a grafana buildpack with bash scripts (https://github.com/SpringerPE/cf-grafana-buildpack) which think it makes easy to understand what each step (the scripts in `bin` folder) are responsible for, and the argument parameters (folders) they get. Is specially important the correct usage of the caching folder to avoid downloading again and again the binaries (resources), because there are other examples on github I think they do not properly manage that part (ofc, the buildpack works but it downloads again and again the resources).

Jose,

El lun., 25 mar. 2019 a las 15:45, Cade Thacker (<cade@...>) escribió:
Long time reader... first time poster :D 

I'm really digging and deconstruction a few different buildpacks trying to understand how they really work.  supply, compile, detect, etc.  Especially the multi buildpack POV. 

So I think i'm starting to get the details straight but I have some basic architecture questions. 

1) For example, if the core functionality of the buildpack is a compiled app (like go or java) and not a scripted language but the github repo only contains the source code then somewhere in this process it must be compiled.  If I want to use the buildpack as an online buildpack that means that the buildpack has to be "built" after it is cloned down during staging.  Is this the correct path?  Or should it be built and the binary pushed back with the code into github? This seems wrong. Somebody hit me with the clue stick. 

2) Second, somewhat tangent question. I know that CloudFoundry is doing tons of work around envoy/istio, but we have a more pressing need right now.  My company has a need to connect many apps and CloudFoundry is just one small part of our runtime. Would it be possible to write a final build pack for envoy and have it basically bind to PORT and then pass the calls to whatever was the 2nd to last buildpack? java, ruby, go, etc.  Forgive me if this is a silly question, but trying to find the edge of this new multi build pack world. Need to inject some custom ingress/egress rules. 

-- 
--cade



--
José Riguera López <jriguera@...>

Re: Buildpack deep dive questions...

Tim Downey
 

Feel free to reach out in the #capi channel on the Cloud Foundry Slack and folks from our team would be happy to chat!

As I mentioned earlier, we're actively working on the MVP so it's very experimental and there's not much yet in the way of docs for it, but we're working on it! Don't mean to derail your immediate plans though, so I would recommend looking into Dan's suggestions for the near-term.

- Tim

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 1:22 PM Cade Thacker <cade.thacker@...> wrote:
This is outstanding.  How can I get involved? I’d love to jump into that conversation with both feet and help!! 

We are looking to better control egress and offload app security on ingress.  

Specifically envoy.  

Cade


On Apr 2, 2019, at 12:38, Tim Downey <tdowney@...> wrote:

Hi Cade,

This won't necessarily help for your immediate needs, but wanted to share that the Cloud Controller (CAPI) team is actively working on experimental support for including user-specified sidecar processes within the app container.

For the MVP form of this you'll still need to find a way to include the sidecar executable with your app (either via a buildpack or including it with the app source), but it should provide an easier way to specify/view information about the sidecar processes via `/v3/sidecars`.


As I said, this is still under active development and very experimental, but we'd be interested in learning more about your use cases.

Stay tuned!

Tim Downey, CAPI Team

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 6:53 AM Daniel Mikusa <dmikusa@...> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:45 AM Cade Thacker <cade@...> wrote:
Long time reader... first time poster :D 

I'm really digging and deconstruction a few different buildpacks trying to understand how they really work.  supply, compile, detect, etc.  Especially the multi buildpack POV. 

So I think i'm starting to get the details straight but I have some basic architecture questions. 

1) For example, if the core functionality of the buildpack is a compiled app (like go or java) and not a scripted language but the github repo only contains the source code then somewhere in this process it must be compiled.  If I want to use the buildpack as an online buildpack that means that the buildpack has to be "built" after it is cloned down during staging.  Is this the correct path?  Or should it be built and the binary pushed back with the code into github? This seems wrong. Somebody hit me with the clue stick. 

If your buildpack itself needs to be compiled, you have two choices:

1.) Compile locally, package a buildpack and install with `cf create-buildpack`.
2.) Use a shim script to build then run your buildpack. If you want to support `cf push -b https://git-url/my-buildpack` then you have to do this.


and the script it runs to install Golang.

 

2) Second, somewhat tangent question. I know that CloudFoundry is doing tons of work around envoy/istio, but we have a more pressing need right now.  My company has a need to connect many apps and CloudFoundry is just one small part of our runtime. Would it be possible to write a final build pack for envoy and have it basically bind to PORT and then pass the calls to whatever was the 2nd to last buildpack? java, ruby, go, etc.  Forgive me if this is a silly question, but trying to find the edge of this new multi build pack world. Need to inject some custom ingress/egress rules. 

The final buildpack can basically do what ever it wants, since it gets to dictate the start command. If you want it to start Envoy + some other stuff you can do that. A couple things to keep in mind. First, if you're starting multiple processes in the app container you need to manage them. If one fails, you need to make it so that they all fail, or you'll have unexpected behavior. For example, if Envoy is running but your second process, presumably your actual app, crashes then you need to make sure they all crash so that the platform can detect the crash and restart your app. Second, multiple processes in the container makes it harder to reason about available memory, be especially careful if you're running a Java app. Lastly, only the supply script will run for non-final buildpacks. If you need finalize to run for a non-final buildpack, like to get the proper Java start command, then that's not going to be easy.

Hope that helps!

Dan


Re: Buildpack deep dive questions...

Cade Thacker <cade.thacker@...>
 

This is outstanding.  How can I get involved? I’d love to jump into that conversation with both feet and help!! 

We are looking to better control egress and offload app security on ingress.  

Specifically envoy.  

Cade


On Apr 2, 2019, at 12:38, Tim Downey <tdowney@...> wrote:

Hi Cade,

This won't necessarily help for your immediate needs, but wanted to share that the Cloud Controller (CAPI) team is actively working on experimental support for including user-specified sidecar processes within the app container.

For the MVP form of this you'll still need to find a way to include the sidecar executable with your app (either via a buildpack or including it with the app source), but it should provide an easier way to specify/view information about the sidecar processes via `/v3/sidecars`.


As I said, this is still under active development and very experimental, but we'd be interested in learning more about your use cases.

Stay tuned!

Tim Downey, CAPI Team

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 6:53 AM Daniel Mikusa <dmikusa@...> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:45 AM Cade Thacker <cade@...> wrote:
Long time reader... first time poster :D 

I'm really digging and deconstruction a few different buildpacks trying to understand how they really work.  supply, compile, detect, etc.  Especially the multi buildpack POV. 

So I think i'm starting to get the details straight but I have some basic architecture questions. 

1) For example, if the core functionality of the buildpack is a compiled app (like go or java) and not a scripted language but the github repo only contains the source code then somewhere in this process it must be compiled.  If I want to use the buildpack as an online buildpack that means that the buildpack has to be "built" after it is cloned down during staging.  Is this the correct path?  Or should it be built and the binary pushed back with the code into github? This seems wrong. Somebody hit me with the clue stick. 

If your buildpack itself needs to be compiled, you have two choices:

1.) Compile locally, package a buildpack and install with `cf create-buildpack`.
2.) Use a shim script to build then run your buildpack. If you want to support `cf push -b https://git-url/my-buildpack` then you have to do this.


and the script it runs to install Golang.

 

2) Second, somewhat tangent question. I know that CloudFoundry is doing tons of work around envoy/istio, but we have a more pressing need right now.  My company has a need to connect many apps and CloudFoundry is just one small part of our runtime. Would it be possible to write a final build pack for envoy and have it basically bind to PORT and then pass the calls to whatever was the 2nd to last buildpack? java, ruby, go, etc.  Forgive me if this is a silly question, but trying to find the edge of this new multi build pack world. Need to inject some custom ingress/egress rules. 

The final buildpack can basically do what ever it wants, since it gets to dictate the start command. If you want it to start Envoy + some other stuff you can do that. A couple things to keep in mind. First, if you're starting multiple processes in the app container you need to manage them. If one fails, you need to make it so that they all fail, or you'll have unexpected behavior. For example, if Envoy is running but your second process, presumably your actual app, crashes then you need to make sure they all crash so that the platform can detect the crash and restart your app. Second, multiple processes in the container makes it harder to reason about available memory, be especially careful if you're running a Java app. Lastly, only the supply script will run for non-final buildpacks. If you need finalize to run for a non-final buildpack, like to get the proper Java start command, then that's not going to be easy.

Hope that helps!

Dan


Re: Buildpack deep dive questions...

Tim Downey
 

Hi Cade,

This won't necessarily help for your immediate needs, but wanted to share that the Cloud Controller (CAPI) team is actively working on experimental support for including user-specified sidecar processes within the app container.

For the MVP form of this you'll still need to find a way to include the sidecar executable with your app (either via a buildpack or including it with the app source), but it should provide an easier way to specify/view information about the sidecar processes via `/v3/sidecars`.


As I said, this is still under active development and very experimental, but we'd be interested in learning more about your use cases.

Stay tuned!

Tim Downey, CAPI Team

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019, 6:53 AM Daniel Mikusa <dmikusa@...> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:45 AM Cade Thacker <cade@...> wrote:
Long time reader... first time poster :D 

I'm really digging and deconstruction a few different buildpacks trying to understand how they really work.  supply, compile, detect, etc.  Especially the multi buildpack POV. 

So I think i'm starting to get the details straight but I have some basic architecture questions. 

1) For example, if the core functionality of the buildpack is a compiled app (like go or java) and not a scripted language but the github repo only contains the source code then somewhere in this process it must be compiled.  If I want to use the buildpack as an online buildpack that means that the buildpack has to be "built" after it is cloned down during staging.  Is this the correct path?  Or should it be built and the binary pushed back with the code into github? This seems wrong. Somebody hit me with the clue stick. 

If your buildpack itself needs to be compiled, you have two choices:

1.) Compile locally, package a buildpack and install with `cf create-buildpack`.
2.) Use a shim script to build then run your buildpack. If you want to support `cf push -b https://git-url/my-buildpack` then you have to do this.


and the script it runs to install Golang.

 

2) Second, somewhat tangent question. I know that CloudFoundry is doing tons of work around envoy/istio, but we have a more pressing need right now.  My company has a need to connect many apps and CloudFoundry is just one small part of our runtime. Would it be possible to write a final build pack for envoy and have it basically bind to PORT and then pass the calls to whatever was the 2nd to last buildpack? java, ruby, go, etc.  Forgive me if this is a silly question, but trying to find the edge of this new multi build pack world. Need to inject some custom ingress/egress rules. 

The final buildpack can basically do what ever it wants, since it gets to dictate the start command. If you want it to start Envoy + some other stuff you can do that. A couple things to keep in mind. First, if you're starting multiple processes in the app container you need to manage them. If one fails, you need to make it so that they all fail, or you'll have unexpected behavior. For example, if Envoy is running but your second process, presumably your actual app, crashes then you need to make sure they all crash so that the platform can detect the crash and restart your app. Second, multiple processes in the container makes it harder to reason about available memory, be especially careful if you're running a Java app. Lastly, only the supply script will run for non-final buildpacks. If you need finalize to run for a non-final buildpack, like to get the proper Java start command, then that's not going to be easy.

Hope that helps!

Dan


Re: Buildpack deep dive questions...

Daniel Mikusa
 

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:45 AM Cade Thacker <cade@...> wrote:
Long time reader... first time poster :D 

I'm really digging and deconstruction a few different buildpacks trying to understand how they really work.  supply, compile, detect, etc.  Especially the multi buildpack POV. 

So I think i'm starting to get the details straight but I have some basic architecture questions. 

1) For example, if the core functionality of the buildpack is a compiled app (like go or java) and not a scripted language but the github repo only contains the source code then somewhere in this process it must be compiled.  If I want to use the buildpack as an online buildpack that means that the buildpack has to be "built" after it is cloned down during staging.  Is this the correct path?  Or should it be built and the binary pushed back with the code into github? This seems wrong. Somebody hit me with the clue stick. 

If your buildpack itself needs to be compiled, you have two choices:

1.) Compile locally, package a buildpack and install with `cf create-buildpack`.
2.) Use a shim script to build then run your buildpack. If you want to support `cf push -b https://git-url/my-buildpack` then you have to do this.


and the script it runs to install Golang.

 

2) Second, somewhat tangent question. I know that CloudFoundry is doing tons of work around envoy/istio, but we have a more pressing need right now.  My company has a need to connect many apps and CloudFoundry is just one small part of our runtime. Would it be possible to write a final build pack for envoy and have it basically bind to PORT and then pass the calls to whatever was the 2nd to last buildpack? java, ruby, go, etc.  Forgive me if this is a silly question, but trying to find the edge of this new multi build pack world. Need to inject some custom ingress/egress rules. 

The final buildpack can basically do what ever it wants, since it gets to dictate the start command. If you want it to start Envoy + some other stuff you can do that. A couple things to keep in mind. First, if you're starting multiple processes in the app container you need to manage them. If one fails, you need to make it so that they all fail, or you'll have unexpected behavior. For example, if Envoy is running but your second process, presumably your actual app, crashes then you need to make sure they all crash so that the platform can detect the crash and restart your app. Second, multiple processes in the container makes it harder to reason about available memory, be especially careful if you're running a Java app. Lastly, only the supply script will run for non-final buildpacks. If you need finalize to run for a non-final buildpack, like to get the proper Java start command, then that's not going to be easy.

Hope that helps!

Dan


Re: Mapping ORGs and Space permissions via LDAP

Mark Coumounduros
 

Hello Cloud Foundry:

Just checking back on whether there are ways to control access to org or spaces using UAA scopes (i.e., mapping LDAP Groups to Cloud Foundry Orgs and/or Spaces).

I last posted to the community back in Feb 2017 and am hoping this feature is now enabled for end users (or forthcoming).  Cheers!

NOTICE: [dotnet-core-buildpack] End of support for Node.js 6.x after 2019-04-28

Elliott Shanks
 

The default version of Node.js in the dotnet-core buildpack will change from the latest 6.x version to the latest 10.x version in the first release of the dotnet-core buildpack after April 28, 2019. Due to the end of upstream support for Node.js 6.x in April, all buildpack users should ensure that their dotnet-core apps run on a minimum buildpack supported version of Node.js 10.x or later.

For more information about Node.js 10.x or LTS timelines for 10.x, refer to: https://github.com/nodejs/Release

For more information about supported Node.js versions in the .NET-core buildpack, refer to: https://buildpacks.cloudfoundry.org/#/buildpacks


--
Respectfully, 

Elliott Shanks
CF Buildpacks PM

NOTICE: [Ruby-buildpack] End of support for Node.js 6.x after 2019-04-28

Elliott Shanks
 

The default version of Node.js in the Ruby buildpack will change from the latest 6.x version to the latest 10.x version in the first release of the Ruby buildpack after April 28, 2019. Due to the end of upstream support for Node.js 6.x in April, all buildpack users should ensure that their Ruby apps run on a minimum buildpack supported version of Node.js 10.x or later.

For more information about Node.js 10.x or LTS timelines for 10.x, refer to: https://github.com/nodejs/Release

For more information about supported Node.js versions in the Ruby buildpack, refer to: https://buildpacks.cloudfoundry.org/#/buildpacks


--
Respectfully, 

Elliott Shanks
CF Buildpacks PM

Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Oleksii Fedorov
 

Thank you all for your replies and input!

We’ve decided to go forward with treating this as a bug (and not an expected behaviour) and hence not a breaking change. 

Best regards,
Oleksii,
on behalf of SAPI team

PS: If somebody’s scripts/automations are still using `cf marketplace` to list non-available plans, use `cf service-access` instead.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:04 PM Sascha Matzke <sascha.matzke@...> wrote:
Hi,

I'm totally in favour of fixing this. The current behaviour always felt wrong and I'm looking forward to the change. 

Best,

Sascha

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:25 AM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476




--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476

Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Sascha Matzke
 

Hi,

I'm totally in favour of fixing this. The current behaviour always felt wrong and I'm looking forward to the change. 

Best,

Sascha

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:25 AM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476


Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Dave Ashby
 

Can't talk now.

On Mar 26, 2019 6:02 AM, Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Sorry, the calendar was all mixed up, it’s Thursday 28.03

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 6:17 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Of course, we’re just trying “to play the card” that the original behaviour was a bug in the first place.

As an admin, If you want to see enabled and disabled plans as a result of the same command, you should use `cf service-access` and **not** `cf marketplace`.

Best regards,
Oleksii

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:05 PM Norm Abramovitz <norm@...> wrote:
If you take the conservative approach it would be a breaking change. 

We have a tool that validates the CF environment after deployment. In our use case, the service exists with plans x, y, z but plan z is disabled.   As long as we can get enabled and disabled plans in some way. that would be good enough.




On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:25 AM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476



--
Norman Abramovitz
Technical Director
Stark & Wayne, LLC





--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476

Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Oleksii Fedorov
 

Sorry, the calendar was all mixed up, it’s Thursday 28.03


On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 6:17 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Of course, we’re just trying “to play the card” that the original behaviour was a bug in the first place.

As an admin, If you want to see enabled and disabled plans as a result of the same command, you should use `cf service-access` and **not** `cf marketplace`.

Best regards,
Oleksii

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:05 PM Norm Abramovitz <norm@...> wrote:
If you take the conservative approach it would be a breaking change. 

We have a tool that validates the CF environment after deployment. In our use case, the service exists with plans x, y, z but plan z is disabled.   As long as we can get enabled and disabled plans in some way. that would be good enough.




On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:25 AM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476



--
Norman Abramovitz
Technical Director
Stark & Wayne, LLC





--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476

Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Oleksii Fedorov
 

Of course, we’re just trying “to play the card” that the original behaviour was a bug in the first place.

As an admin, If you want to see enabled and disabled plans as a result of the same command, you should use `cf service-access` and **not** `cf marketplace`.

Best regards,
Oleksii

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:05 PM Norm Abramovitz <norm@...> wrote:
If you take the conservative approach it would be a breaking change. 

We have a tool that validates the CF environment after deployment. In our use case, the service exists with plans x, y, z but plan z is disabled.   As long as we can get enabled and disabled plans in some way. that would be good enough.




On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:25 AM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476



--
Norman Abramovitz
Technical Director
Stark & Wayne, LLC





--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476

Buildpack deep dive questions...

Cade Thacker
 

Long time reader... first time poster :D 

I'm really digging and deconstruction a few different buildpacks trying to understand how they really work.  supply, compile, detect, etc.  Especially the multi buildpack POV. 

So I think i'm starting to get the details straight but I have some basic architecture questions. 

1) For example, if the core functionality of the buildpack is a compiled app (like go or java) and not a scripted language but the github repo only contains the source code then somewhere in this process it must be compiled.  If I want to use the buildpack as an online buildpack that means that the buildpack has to be "built" after it is cloned down during staging.  Is this the correct path?  Or should it be built and the binary pushed back with the code into github? This seems wrong. Somebody hit me with the clue stick. 

2) Second, somewhat tangent question. I know that CloudFoundry is doing tons of work around envoy/istio, but we have a more pressing need right now.  My company has a need to connect many apps and CloudFoundry is just one small part of our runtime. Would it be possible to write a final build pack for envoy and have it basically bind to PORT and then pass the calls to whatever was the 2nd to last buildpack? java, ruby, go, etc.  Forgive me if this is a silly question, but trying to find the edge of this new multi build pack world. Need to inject some custom ingress/egress rules. 

-- 
--cade

Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Norm Abramovitz
 

If you take the conservative approach it would be a breaking change. 

We have a tool that validates the CF environment after deployment. In our use case, the service exists with plans x, y, z but plan z is disabled.   As long as we can get enabled and disabled plans in some way. that would be good enough.




On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:25 AM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476



--
Norman Abramovitz
Technical Director
Stark & Wayne, LLC



Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Oleksii Fedorov
 

Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476