[Vote] About the naming of UnitedDaemonset

[kadisi]

What happened:

Recently we are working on a proposal for UnitedDaemonset ,however, the naming of UnitedDaemonset maybe lead to some misunderstandings ( ref #422 ). So we need to revisit this naming problem。

What you expected to happen:

Here are two names for your vote：

• UnitedDaemonset
  UnitedDaemonset follows the previous definition of UnitedDeployment。

• NodePoolDaemonset
  NodePoolDaemonset focuses more on the node pool concept

Welcome to vote！！！

others
/kind question

[huangyuqi]

UnitedDaemonset +1

[rambohe-ch]

@kadisi I think that other names are welcome.

[zzguang]

Since "UnitedDeployment" and "UnitedDaemonset" are mainly responsible for workload disposal on nodepools, if they can be combined together, they can be named as one like "NodePoolWorkload", otherwise, I think "NodePoolDeployment" and "NodePoolDaemonset" are more clear to users.

[rambohe-ch]

@huangyuqi @zzguang @kadisi
I think that both UnitedDeployment/UnitedDeamonset and NodePoolDeployment/NodePoolDaemonset will confuse end users. users will question where is UnitedStatfulset or NodePoolStatfulset?

[Fei-Guo]

UnitedDeployment-> YurtPlacement
UnitedDaemonSet-> YurtDaemon

or

UnitedDeployment-> YurtAppSet
UnitedDaemonSet-> YurtAppDaemon

[kadisi]

Our component is called Yurt-app-Manager, and the main purpose is to manage applications.

YurtAppSet， YurtAppDaemon +1

[zzguang]

Echo to @Fei-Guo to define the names from the app level, which seems to be a higher level abstraction.
What's more, it makes the native service template support becomes to be more reasonable than before.
To cover the close relationship between the app and the nodepool, I recommend another candidate for your reference:
UnitedDeployment -> NodePoolAppSet
UnitedDaemonSet -> NodePoolAppDaemon

[rambohe-ch]

@Fei-Guo @zzguang In my opinion, compared with YurtAppSet and YurtAppDaemon, NodePoolAppSet and NodePoolAppDaemon are more likely to accept by end users.
so NodePoolAppSet and NodePoolAppDaemon +1

[kadisi]

UnitedDaemonset
UnitedDeployment

or

UnitedDeployment->NodePoolDeployment
UnitedDaemonset->NodePoolDaemonset

---

UnitedDeployment-> YurtPlacement
UnitedDaemonSet-> YurtDaemon

or

UnitedDeployment-> YurtAppSet
UnitedDaemonSet-> YurtAppDaemon

---

UnitedDeployment -> NodePoolAppSet
UnitedDaemonSet -> NodePoolAppDaemon

[kadisi]

After community discussion, we finally decided to name UnitedDaemonset to YurtAppDaemon.
In the future we will name UnitedDeployment to YurtAppSet.

UnitedDeployment -> YurtAppSet
UnitedDaemonSet -> YurtAppDaemon

If the community students have new ideas, welcome to participate in the discussion。

[zzguang]

By my understanding, the scope of YurtAppDaemon is bigger than NodePoolAppDaemon, not sure whether the assumption below makes sense:
We know that not all the edge nodes are definitely located in a nodepool, if yurt-app-manager will extend its scope to handle app disposal to these scattered edge nodes in future, the corresponding component may be named as "NodeAppDaemon", and current "NodePoolAppDaemon" can leave some space for it.
Otherwise, If yurt-app-manager will focus on nodepool all the way, "YurtAppDaemon" seems to be the better choice.

[rambohe-ch]

By my understanding, the scope of YurtAppDaemon is bigger than NodePoolAppDaemon, not sure whether the assumption below makes sense:
We know that not all the edge nodes are definitely located in a nodepool, if yurt-app-manager will extend its scope to handle app disposal to these scattered edge nodes in future, the corresponding component may be named as "NodeAppDaemon", and current "NodePoolAppDaemon" can leave some space for it.
Otherwise, If yurt-app-manager will focus on nodepool all the way, "YurtAppDaemon" seems to be the better choice.

In openyurt cluster，nodes(include edge nodes and cloud nodes) must be belong to one NodePool, if no NodePool is specified, default NodePool will be used.

[zzguang]

By my understanding, the scope of YurtAppDaemon is bigger than NodePoolAppDaemon, not sure whether the assumption below makes sense:
We know that not all the edge nodes are definitely located in a nodepool, if yurt-app-manager will extend its scope to handle app disposal to these scattered edge nodes in future, the corresponding component may be named as "NodeAppDaemon", and current "NodePoolAppDaemon" can leave some space for it.
Otherwise, If yurt-app-manager will focus on nodepool all the way, "YurtAppDaemon" seems to be the better choice.

In openyurt cluster，nodes(include edge nodes and cloud nodes) must be belong to one NodePool, if no NodePool is specified, default NodePool will be used.

Okay, then I have no questions, thanks! :)

[kadisi]

In openyurt cluster，nodes(include edge nodes and cloud nodes) must be belong to one NodePool, if no NodePool is specified, default NodePool will be used.

@zzguang @rambohe-ch So this needs to be reinterpreted,It is recommended that users place nodes in the same region in the same node pool and that all nodes have their own node pool. It's easy to manage。 But this is not a constraint。

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.