Open Stack

On 01/23/2013 01:49 PM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
> Agreed. My concern is, this is a somewhat simple application and it
> seems (to me) that openstack.common immediately makes things complex.
> I'm sure there is more being used in Oslo than just logging and config
> that I'm missing.

In this specific case, I believe the Ceilometer folks are adding, or
actively working on adding, pieces to Oslo that match the work they did
on the new Pecan-based WSGI router framework. I think the reason that
they use Oslo now is because they copied in a whole chunk of Nova code
to begin the project -- for expedience's sake -- and then after working
with the Oslo team saw that it would be cleaner to use Oslo and
contribute fixes back into it. Ceilo contributors, please correct me if
I am wrong!

> Permission to speak freely ...
> 
> Put another way, should every openstack project have to use the common
> libraries if they can skin the cat in an easier way? Should they have to
> take on the extra workload of fixing up another project in that effort?
> Will they be shunned if they don't?

Shunned? No. Encouraged to align, yes. :) As you know, it's a pet peeve
of mine to see duplicated code, so I take special note on things such as
these.

> I know the right answer is "yes, do it for the betterment of the
> community." ... but sometimes you just want to get make some progress
> quickly. (this is just me talking off the cuff here, of course :)
> 
> Again, and it's just my $0.02, but the whole thing seems like hanging a
> picture nail with a sledge hammer.

I totally understand the pressure to get things working and make
progress, trust me. :) This was merely a gentle nudge to remember that
there is benefit in code re-use that often trumps short-term gains in
productivity.

All said with the deepest respect and reverence for your work, Sandy :)

Best,
-jay