Open Stack

On Jan 18, 2014, at 12:00 AM, Jamie Lennox <jamielennox at redhat.com> wrote:

> I can't see any reason that all of these situations can't be met. 
> 
> We can finally take the openstack pypi namespace, move keystoneclient -> openstack.keystone and similar for the other projects. Have them all based upon openstack.base and probably an openstack.transport for transport.
> 
> For the all-in-one users we can then just have openstack.client which depends on all of the openstack.x projects. This would satisfy the requirement of keeping projects seperate, but having the one entry point for newer users. Similar to the OSC project (which could acutally rely on the new all-in-one).
> 
> This would also satisfy a lot of the clients who have i know are looking to move to a version 2 and break compatability with some of the crap from the early days.
> 
> I think what is most important here is deciding what we want from our clients and discussing a common base that we are happy to support - not just renaming the existing ones.
> 
> (I don't buy the problem with large amounts of dependencies, if you have a meta-package you just have one line in requirements and pip will figure the rest out.)

You’re assuming:

1: Pip works when installing the entire dependency graph (it often doesn’t)
2: For some of these requirements, the user has a compiler installed (they don’t)
3: Installing 1 “meta package” that install N+K dependencies makes end user consumers happy (it doesn’t)
4: All of these dependencies make shipping a single binary deployment easier (it doesn’t)
5: Installing and using all of these things makes using openstack within my code conceptually simpler (it doesn’t)

We can start with *not* renaming the sub clients (meaning) collapsing them into the singular namespace; but the problem is that every one of those sub dependencies is potential liability to someone using this single client. 

If yes, we could only target fedora, and rely on yum & rpm, I’d agree with you - but for python application dependencies across multiple OSes and developers doing ci/cd using these systems I can’t. I also don’t want user to stumble into the nuanced vagaries of the sub-clients when writing application code; writing glue code to bind them all together does work very well (we know this from experience).


> 
> Jamie
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jonathan LaCour" <jonathan-lists at cleverdevil.org>
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, 18 January, 2014 4:00:58 AM
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Donald Stufft < donald at stufft.io > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Jesse Noller < jesse.noller at RACKSPACE.COM >
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Renat Akhmerov < rakhmerov at mirantis.com > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Since it’s pretty easy to get lost among all the opinions I’d like to
>> clarify/ask a couple of things:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    * Keeping all the clients physically separate/combining them in to a
>>    single library. Two things here:
>>        * In case of combining them, what exact project are we considering?
>>        If this list is limited to core projects like nova and keystone what
>>        policy could we have for other projects to join this list?
>>        (Incubation, graduation, something else?)
>>        * In terms of granularity and easiness of development I’m for keeping
>>        them separate but have them use the same boilerplate code, basically
>>        we need a OpenStack Rest Client Framework which is flexible enough
>>        to address all the needs in an abstract domain agnostic manner. I
>>        would assume that combining them would be an additional
>>        organizational burden that every stakeholder would have to deal
>>        with.
>> 
>> Keeping them separate is awesome for *us* but really, really, really sucks
>> for users trying to use the system.
>> 
>> I agree. Keeping them separate trades user usability for developer usability,
>> I think user usability is a better thing to strive for.
>> 100% agree with this. In order for OpenStack to be its most successful, I
>> believe firmly that a focus on end-users and deployers needs to take the
>> forefront. That means making OpenStack clouds as easy to consume/leverage as
>> possible for users and tool builders, and simplifying/streamlining as much
>> as possible.
>> 
>> I think that a single, common client project, based upon package namespaces,
>> with a unified, cohesive feel is a big step in this direction.
>> 
>> --
>> Jonathan LaCour
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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