Lagom 1.5 dropping support for lightbend orchestration

(David Pennell) #1
says that Lagom 1.5 will not support Lightbend Orchestration. I can’t find any discussion of this and am curious about the rationale.

(Sergey Morgunov) #2

LBO has status of incubator project. I think, that all discussion was inner of Lightbend.

(Renato) #3

Hi @dpennell,

Although reactive-lib and sbt-reactive-app were useful for many, we came to the conclusion that it’s better if we instead document what needs to be taken into consideration when deploying a Lagom application.

There are so many different strategies and the decision on which one to adopt depends a lot on environment and user needs. That said, a tool to generate yaml files becomes too limiting and less interesting as the user will often want to fine-tune the deployment descriptors.

We believe we will do a better service if we explain the main concepts, offer some examples and help the users to better understand how and why things works, or needs to work, in a given way. As such they will be in a better position to fine-tune their deployments according to their needs.

I hope this will help you understand the rationale behind that decision.


(Olivier Lemasle) #4

Hi @renato,

Thank you for the clarification. Does that mean that Lightbend Orchestration is now deprecated?

This set of tools was helpful to deploy to Kubernetes but I understand that production setups required customization of the deployment descriptors, which made the tools less useful.

However, even if I understand the decision, I’m concerned by the lack of transparency of that decision, and it makes me wondering how Lightbend respects its “Open Source Position Statement”. I know Lightbend Orchestration was an incubator project, but as Lagom documentation (in released version 1.4.x) referred to it, it seems to be an important part of Lagom ecosystem. I’d expect from an open source community some kind of transparency/openness in the development process and a shared roadmap, to understand if the vision behind the project fits the user’s or contributor’s needs.


(Tim Moore) #5

Thanks for the feedback @olivierlemasle. We’re aiming to be more transparent with the road map in the future. Stay tuned!