Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Restructure/reorganize content in SM introduction pages #4049
Restructure/reorganize content in SM introduction pages #4049
Changes from 5 commits
7bb057f
292f4c5
b7e11c4
cc14295
4a42421
0338e9f
6027cac
b740e89
feca778
58c7457
673ce93
e6c682d
e56deeb
d23a4e2
3057115
fcef9c8
b17e352
daa1da3
1793d14
46adef6
6d5135e
9fa6419
875bad2
d3a19ed
0585252
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Leaving an expansion on content here for #1055 - just a quick rewrite for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe these architecture diagrams are a little out of date, so I attempted to include that these were example/sample deployments, only, until they can be updated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The "additional considerations" section in the original architecture doc includes this:
As far as I could tell, this is the only place we talk about which (if any) components have anti-affinity enabled, or mention what to do in that case/"Pending" state pods? I don't think this diagram section is the right place for this information, even in passing, and if this is something SM users will need to know, it should be called out more directly in appropriate sections...? I can spin off a new issue to research this if this line of thought seems correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added @theburi as a reviewer to the overall PR, but I'm hoping he could shed some light on this specific topic. Is this something we can address here quickly @theburi, or should @conceptualshark create a new issue and discuss it with you separately?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My initial thought was that this note would be too specific at this doc level. There are several constrains that needs to be taken into account and we should group them in one place, somewhere inside installation page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm going to go ahead and remove the notes from this section of the docs, which is meant to be more of an overview, and created an issue for discussion/creation of a better place for these recommendations/constraints/etc to live (#4075).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We refer to these as Components. Web Applications is not a topology term that we use. It also does not represent them fully
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the usage here shouldn't capture each component fully, only represent the web interface, and should explicitly separate them out from Zeebe in terms of access.
There's a number of places where we use web app/application like this, so if it shouldn't be used at all, let me know if I should create a separate ticket to update it elsewhere.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I could not craft a good definition of when to use components vs. web applications off the top of my head. If I had to reason out loud, it would be the following: Modeler is the component, but Web Modeler is a web application. I don't think Identity is a web application, but I don't know how I would verify that.
For internal resources, I would recommend this PMM-maintained page. You can also follow up with @karl-heinsen since I hit a dead end here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would "web components" be preferable? The entirety of this section is focused on separating out the different points of access, so "Components" isn't inclusive enough as Zeebe isn't included, and we're also not referring to the entirety of the component - only the method of access. Looking for any term that is inclusive of all components with a served log-in page, and excludes those without.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would back either "web applications" or "web components" to get this out the door.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Web Modeller has three parts - NodeJS server that exposes web interface, REST API server and Socket server. Identity has also web interface. 'Web Component' is to restrictive and diminishes the value of our product. We typically refer to zeebe, optimize, operate as Component or C8.
Can we use 'Component' going forward?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since we are updating the page. This statement is not really correct. Not all the components are highly available. Operate is a single node only (Using Helm charts) It is possible to deploy in HA mode, but it needs manual intervention. Can we rephrase it ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would argue that 'it is possible to deploy HA mode', and therefore the statement is correct :P I feel it would sound more confusing if we state its not HA or partially.
Would it be an idea to create a follow up to create a guide or make the HCs configuration more easy for customers to set up all apps in HA mode then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@hisImminence @theburi Do you think this diagram with a theoretical HA mode is adding anything for a technical audience? I could remove it if it's only adding to confusion, and make an issue to create the follow-up HA guide. Or, leave it for now, and make that guide to link to from here when it's done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You are referring to the diagram on this page, or?
I would go with this option: I could remove it if it's only adding to confusion, and make an issue to create the follow-up HA guide.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Specifically the high availability diagram here. I've gone ahead and removed it in this iteration, and set up this issue to look into it outside of this cleanup PR.
This file was deleted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I got into a habit of using the docs area instead of trying to walk the file structure with
../
's. Can you bring this to a team meeting so we can discuss it? No action required here (in the PR).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One thought here: would it make sense to have the Docker Compose part as a separate bullet point (would make if fmpov clearer that its not related to the docker setup), and only local!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I pulled out docker compose in the latest push, and put it in its own mention, to keep this only a list of option for production-viable deployments.