Open Stack

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:32:50 +0930
cyeoh at ozlabs.au.ibm.com wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:24:31 -0700
> Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to see this seriously considered.  I also understand
> > > that it's more work and those driving the v3 API want to make sure
> > > it gets completed.  What do you guys think?  How much extra work
> > > would this be? Would recruiting someone else to help make it
> > > manageable?
> > >
> > 
> > I'm available to at least offer advice about getting started,
> > debugging, and code reviews. I should have some cycles for coding in
> > a few weeks, too.
> > 
> 
> As Russell mention my main concern would be making sure we get the
> v3 API work complete during the Havana cycle. And we do have the extra
> constraint at the start of needing to get the new extension framework 
> in before the extensions can be ported to the v3 area as well as
> needing to leave enough time near the end of the havana cycle for the
> tempest tests to be ported as well.
> 
> That being said I'm quite open to the idea if its going to make things
> better in the long term. I don't know much about it - is there
> anything you can suggest I look at to get up to speed with Pecan/WSME?

I've had a look at Pecan/WSME and whilst it does seem the right way to
head long term I am still concerned about how taking this on would
impact getting the rest of the v3 API work implemented on schedule and
I think I would need a reasonable amount of help getting the initial
core support for Pecan/WSME done by someone who is very familiar with
them to keep on track.

The goal is to get the new API extension framework in by H1 (end of
May) with just support for the core API functionality and some example
extensions along with unittests. The idea is at that point onwards we
can have a few people easily working parallel to port the rest of the
API extensions (and associated tests).

From my understanding of what a Pecan/WSME conversion would involve it
is pretty much orthogonal to the rework/fixup of the API but there are
some gains to be had from doing the framework changes for extensions
and API changes at the same time as the the Pecan/WSME changes. But
strictly speaking it wouldn't be necessary as it won't change the API
itself.

So what I suggest is that if someone else is happy to step up and drive
the integration of Pecan/WSME support with the new extensions framework
for the v3 API and the core of the v3 API with the h1 target date then
I'm more than happy to help and work with them to achieve that. But we
need to keep the h1 target date to keep the rest of the api work on
schedule.

If no one has the time at the moment to do that then it should be
possible to do the Pecan/WSME conversion later, but it will be a big
chunk of work that may be difficult to introduce in reasonably small
chunks.

How does that sound?

Regards,

Chris
-- 
yeohc at au1.ibm.com