Open Stack

Seems like a case where if its useful for 2/3 projects than maybe it
should be in common.

I think it might be hard/impossible to always get 3/3 (or 100%) usefulness
for everyone.

On 9/7/12 12:09 PM, "Gabriel Hurley" <Gabriel.Hurley at nebula.com> wrote:

>In response to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/12413/ I'm faced with the
>following question: should openstack common modules be included in cases
>where they're not providing any benefit other than standardization?
>
>In particular, there are 3 points around that review:
>
>  1. The jsonutils code is designed to solve problems Horizon doesn't
>have.
>  2. The timeutils code duplicates functionality already built into
>Django (which Horizon is built on) and is only included because jsonutils
>now requires it.
>  3. The timeutils code is now adding external dependencies (iso8601
>python module) which *again* is duplicating built-in function in Django.
>
>This seems like a really bad approach. It's a long dependency chain that
>adds nothing other than saying "we're using openstack-common".
>
>I'm inclined to remove jsonutils from Horizon (the "setup" module from
>openstack-common is still quite useful) and just go back to using the
>built-in python json.
>
>Alternatively, we need to introduce some constraints around introducing
>dependency chains in common...
>
>Thoughts?
>
>    - Gabriel 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev