Discussion on Sandbox environment and deployment issues of BB implementations into the Sandbox | Technoforte discussed the current access issues they were facing with deployment highlighting the need for access to various services such as cluster access, VPN VPC, listeners, load balancer, domain names, and ACM (certificate manager). They also mentioned the need for clarity on storage class and the deployment of a 4-node cluster instead of a 6-node cluster. The need for a minimal deployment setup by BB implementation providers was emphasized during the meeting. Technoforte was advised the importance of using the Sandbox resources carefully and wisely, considering the limited availability of infrastructure resources from the Sandbox side. Technoforte also discussed if there is a need for using something like WireGuard as VPN for private connections and sought opinions on its implementation. It was clarified that there was no VPN level configuration or deployment planned for the sandbox and emphasized the public domain availability of the sandbox for government clients. The team also discussed the use of the "open source 1 Longhorn storage class" and the possibility of using EFS (Elastic File System) instead. They needed clarification on whether to continue using the current storage class or switch to EFS and obtain the necessary access and configurations. Overall, there was discussion around the challenges faced in installing and deploying the building blocks in the sandbox and the need for isolated environments for vendors to play with their installations before deploying them in the sandbox. The concept of deploying adapters as proxies to existing installations of building blocks to address deployment challenges is one model to address such deployment challenges.
|
Proposal of Gofore team for deployment of Adapters and proxies instead of complete BB products. | Vasil (Gofore team) presented a proposal that the Sandbox team is working on for deploying adapters or proxies instead of the full building block applications in the sandbox. The idea was to have adapters act as proxies to existing installations of building blocks, thus providing a more flexible and cloud-agnostic approach. This approach would allow for easier integration and adaptability with different types of building block implementations. It was discussed as a potential solution to address compatibility and deployment challenges, especially for larger BB applications. The proposal emphasizes the need for compliance based on Gov Stack APIs and the ability of vendors to adapt their applications or provide adaptation mechanisms was discussed. It also considers the concept of mocks or emulators with definition of precise interfaces that enables adaptability for specific use cases. Ramkumar suggested the Gofore team to refer to the Govstack architecture document that outlines the nonfunctional requirements and considerations for onboarding new products. It was suggested reviewing this document and discussing any contrasting ideas with the architecture team. The team decided to evaluate the proposed changes and concepts with the Architecture and Tech Committees before making any significant alterations to the current approach.
|
