This document describes some of the design decisions made for Silver Lining. It should help you understand some of “why”, and if you don’t see something in this document, it may be “unintentional design”; that is, not something deliberate but just expedient or not a committed decision.
Several systems, most notably Heroku, integrate directly with a VCS system, such as git or Mercurial. In these systems, you push to a particular destination, and that triggers a deployment.
Silver Lining doesn’t do this, and the more I think about it the more I think about this it’s a bad idea to do VCS integration. Some reasons:
It’s simply not necessary. What’s the real advantage of git push over silver update? You need an explicit command in all cases because commits don’t map one-to-one to deployments.
You need a separate tool regardless. The silver update does stuff like updating /etc/hosts, and actually, a bunch of other things, all of which is easy enough in a separate tool. It’s not the kind of thing that is reasonable to do in a post-commit hook; I think it is advantageous to handle deployment synchronously.
You have to choose VCS just like how you choose to play casino games at the best Online Pokies casinos. I like Mercurial. Other people like git. Some people even like bzr and svn. None of this relates to what Silver Lining does, it doesn’t need to enter that battle.
Applications are assemblies of code. This is a big one; applications are generally made up of stuff from several repositories. I actually like putting library files into a repository, even when that means copying the files from an upstream repository. I like this sometimes. If you are writing the library, then this isn’t a good idea; you should be dealing directly with the appropriate repository, without combining code from multiple repositories into one repository.
A typical application will have at least two repositories: one for the “application” (i.e., the code you are developing) and another for the “libraries” (everything in lib/python). You can edit code in your application, commit, etc. Stuff in lib/python should not be edited, you should only install or upgrade/downgrade those libraries (probably using pip) and commit the results.
Try before you commit. Lots of things are okay to do after only changing code and testing in development, but some things are more likely to be problematic. It’s nice to test these things with a real deployment before actually committing the work. So long as “commit” isn’t part of the workflow, this is easy: you call silver update, and it doesn’t care if you haven’t actually committed everything yet.
Declarative Application Setup
The application’s deployment needs are generally defined in app.ini. It’s small, but it covers all the details so far.
It’s come up that people have wanted hooks to do things like configure a database. I don’t want that to happen in applications; applications say what they need, and the Silver Lining services give them what they need. Applications in this way are declarative.
One of the primary things I want to do with Silver Lining is to separate “application” from “environment”, and have Silver Lining manage the environment and applications exist as more of a Platonic ideal.
If you have needs that aren’t met by Silver Lining, the best way is to modify Silver Lining itself. It’s a good chance you want to put something in silversupport.services.*. This isn’t perfect, but it has a side-effect that there’s a collective benefit to these new features (since it’s something reusable), and applications stay a bit simpler. Big features (a bunch are listed in the todo also usually belong in Silver Lining – at least some of them, there are also of course big features that go right in the application.
No Build Process On The Server
Tools like Buildout and fassembler target the idea of repeatable and isolated build systems. With deployment using these tools, you would run the build process (probably from scratch) for each deployment.
It’s kind of nice for development because it works nicely for development machines just like production, you just have to run the build tool and you have a nice local copy. One of the problems though is you, as the developer setting up the Buildout, become responsible for getting everything to build. If you are doing things like compiling a database this becomes rather burdensome. If you are using a database but you aren’t compiling it, you then have to figure out integration with people’s systems. It gives you the power to solve people’s problems – a genuine benefit – but it also gives you the responsibility to solve people’s problems. You can’t just say “install X however is appropriate on your system”.
Another big problem I have with doing builds on deployment is that you have to go onto the server, run a bunch of stuff, handle any failures (which are both possible and fairly common), confirm the result, and then activate the new build. This is incredibly un-fun.
There is absolutely no building when you deploy an application with Silver Lining. Files are copied over. Maybe your app gets a little chance to set itself up (update_fetch). In the future Silver Lining will probably handle backups, simple testing (to see if the app runs at all) and reverting the application when there’s a failure. But there are no compiler errors. New hard-coded paths aren’t introduced. It’s simple.
In my experience this greatly increases the ease and reliability of deployments. If you have a small problem with your application, you can fix it and deploy it and feel pretty confident your small fix will have small effects.
Non-.py libraries are handled separately
You’ll notice if you need to use some library that isn’t pure-Python, you need to have the Ubuntu package for that library installed. This happens somewhat implicitly for services, and more explicitly with the packages configuration setting.
Generally I’ve found that Ubuntu packaging of such libraries (a) works well, (b) is stable and updates are appropriately conservative (c) is new enough. Pure-Python libraries generally get updated much more frequently, but everyone treats these C libraries more conservatively. You should treat C libraries more conservatively.
This doesn’t entirely stop you from handling a volatile C library, or even developing one in concert with your application. But you will have to turn it into a Debian package and probably create a Launchpad PPA. It’s substantial work, but before you go messing with C libraries in your application you should be ready to do a lot of work anyway.
Application API has a small surface area
Exactly how Silver Lining works will change over time. There are a lot of places to generalize and expand its operation. As this happens it is important that Silver Lining applications not change very much.
Right now the API for Silver Lining is fairly small (from the perspective of an application). There are some environmental variables, there is a small app.ini configuration file.
While no doubt there are some additions to be made to the application API, I want to keep those additions as small as possible. Building up the infrastructure around applications is okay; generally that means stuff that we can iterate on, figure out, maybe discard. So long as applications are kept abstracted from the environment we have a lot of flexibility. As soon as we collapse the application with the environment we’re going to have constraints and future problems. So: we must resist doing that.
We should also consider Java as a counterexample. In the JVM environment they abstracted away anything resembling a specific operating system. Python hasn’t done that, and I don’t want to do that; if the environment leaks into an application we should still resist creating an abstraction. Undocumented application abilities will get used and may be fragile, but they are better than documented APIs that get changed.
This doesn’t really qualify as a “design decision” as it’s not a particularly deliberate decision, but because it is asked about a lot…
Fabric is a library for managing remote servers. It has functions to call remote commands, transfer files, etc., typically over ssh. As such it seems like a no-brainer to use for Silver Lining, right?
And maybe it is, but when writing Silver Lining I did not really want to learn a new tool, as it would only distract from what I was trying to do (especially at a point in time when I wasn’t sure what I was trying to do). So I kept things simple, calling out to ssh manually when necessary. And this actually works reasonably well.
Since then it has gotten a bit more complicated, and there’s a bit more tunneling happening, and the consistency of the codebase has suffered. But not that badly all considered. Most of it would be easily resolvable by simple refactoring (and the same refactoring would be needed even if switching to Fabric). So I remain somewhat reluctant to add Fabric to the mix.
And really the biggest concern I have with Fabric is that underlying the request is a desire to do ad hoc server manipulations using Fabric. A lot of people have deployment systems using Fabric that basically poke around on the server, installing things, configuring things, etc, in order to deploy their application. This is definitely not how Silver Lining should work. Internally Silver Lining connects to the server and runs commands (though many of the commands it runs are scripts hosted on the server). But individual deployments work at a more abstract level. They should never be making these kinds of modifications. If you are developing Silver Lining itself then sure, you can add new scripts and interactions. But, as I’ve noted, it’s not particularly hard to do these remote interactions with raw ssh callouts.
So while I am not opposed to Fabric, I am not sure it is necessary or worth the extra layer of abstraction. Also I am a bit worried about the added Paramiko dependency (Paramiko implements the ssh interaction, and doesn’t use the normal openssh ssh client, and I worry is a bit big; but admittedly I haven’t looked closely).
This system is based on Ubuntu. Jaunty, Karmic, in the future no doubt other updates will come around. For the most part the Jaunty/Karmic distinction is temporary (I suppose it should just be upgraded to Karmic), and supporting multiple revisions isn’t ideal or desired.
Support for other Linux distributions is not desired. No one has asked about this so far, so I’m hoping this will be a non-controversial choice. Many parts of the system expose Ubuntu (especially the packages configuration). The config files are written based on their locations in Ubuntu and Ubuntu policy. I don’t want to introduce any indirection to this, or any abstraction layer. The consistency and reliability of the system is based on the consistency of its components, and this is an area where I have no desire to support flexibility at the sacrifice of consistency.
Bare Base Systems
Being based on “cloud” servers, Silver Lining prefers a bare server. Much like the Ubuntu decision, this is intentional and provides needed consistency. It’s not a goal to support existing servers that have been setup in eclectic ways. You don’t have to use a “cloud” server to get a bare server, of course; but you do need a bare server.
Functionality is added from concrete needs
I’m trying to avoid implementing things I don’t need at the moment. Of course, patches from people who have needs-at-the-moment are also cool. I don’t want to predict how things should happen based on unrealistic ideas of how Silver Lining gets used. I want to react to how someone actually wants to use Silver Lining, with a problem clearly in hand.
We see the same bugs, we fix the same bugs
Part of the consistency of the server environment is that we can have a consistent experience, all of us, one big community of reluctant sysadmin/programmers (we play dual-class characters). With this consistency bugs aren’t obscure. We all deal with the same system and the same bugs. I want to preserve that. Forks of the code are fine, but I really hope they are temporary because I want us to be fixing each other’s bugs. There are a lot of moving pieces. I want this to be a finely tuned machine; complex, but refined. That takes a lot of iterating, and I need a community of people iterating with me to get there. This can be done before or even after having a good time at a mobile casino winning casino bonuses online.