kubevela VS skaffold

Finally, I think the OAM model offers one possible future. Take a look at projects like KubeVela and Crossplane. These allow you to compose your own custom abstraction layer. The developer creates a simple CRD called "Application" and this is translated into ths k8s or even off-cluster resources. Problem right now is the complexity is transferred onto guys configuring the platform..... I want to see more "out of the box" implementations.

Gotcha, thanks! We already run ArgoCD but having devs write raw manifests feels so low-level when it’s usually the same combo of configmaps, ingresses, services, deployments… Maybe this is more in the direction of what I’m looking for? 🤔 https://kubevela.io

Note: On that topic, I'm keeping a close eye on the Open Application Model and the kubevela projects. I think it’ll help write a representation of an application and its components that we can validate the structure of our code against, and generate documentation from it. Not a complete solution to the problem, but it'll help with certain parts of architecture documentation

Also, kubevela is getting ready to connect to clusterpedia https://github.com/kubevela/kubevela/issues/4237,

https://kubevela.io/ is an alternative that has been around longer, exposes CUE naturally, and builds on open standards for app packs. I'd recommend this open-source product.

A nice middle ground is using a tool like Google's Skaffold, which provides "Bazel-like" capabilities for composing Docker images and tagging them based on a number of strategies, including file manifests. In my case, I also use build args to explicitly set versions of external dependencies.

While I am in a Typescript environment with this setup at the moment, my personal experience that Skaffold with Docker has a lighter implementation and maintenance overhead than Bazel. (You also get the added benefit of easy deployment and automatic rebuilds.)

I quite liked using Bazel in a small Golang monorepo, but I ran into pain when trying to do things like include third-party pre-compiled binaries in the Docker builds, because of the unusual build rules convention. The advantage of Skaffold is it provides a thin build/tag/deploy/verify layer over Docker and other container types. Might be worth a look!

Kudos to the Google team building it! https://skaffold.dev

To get a similar experience of preevy up, first we’ll need to split the build and deploy using process or alternatively employ tools that orchestrate build-tag-push-update-sync flow like Skaffold/Tilt.

We will be using docker and microk8s from Canonical. For running our software during development, we will be using skaffold which is a great tool developed by Google.

To add more context, if you are developing containers in a local dev environment, the minimum you should have is the Google Cloud SDK and Skaffold. The SDK will allow you to programmatically interact with Googleapis e.g. auth, services, resources. Skaffold will allow you to build and deploy to the cloud similar to working with a local dev environment.

I have used both Skaffold and Devspace. I prefer the latter.

I wonder if it has some overlap with https://skaffold.dev/.

K3d and Skaffold for local development

skaffold.dev - build in k8s - no more asking for the database password. All the plumbing to the backend is just done so it's easier for them to test and demo any branch