Agree-- this topic has come up several times, and I think it's just a matter of deciding between keystoneclient or openstack-common. Although I wouldn't immediately think to look for middleware in a client library, my vote goes to keystoneclient; auth_token should utilize keystoneclient's python API anyway. -Dolph On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Gabriel Hurley <Gabriel.Hurley at nebula.com>wrote: > I think OpenStack Common might be a more appropriate place for it, but I > agree 100% that it shouldn't live *in* Keystone. > > - Gabriel > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian Waldon [mailto:bcwaldon at gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 1:49 PM > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List > > Subject: [openstack-dev] Keystone auth_token middleware > > > > The auth_token middleware shouldn't live in the Keystone source tree. It > is > > not intended to be used alongside any of the Keystone code as it gets > pulled > > in to every service *but* Keystone. It is super frustrating to have to > install all > > of Keystone just to get this one piece of code. As this middleware is > just a > > client, I am proposing we move it into the existing keystone client > library - > > python-keystoneclient. What are the immediate feelings here? > > > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20120921/f8019142/attachment.html>