Open Stack

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 19/03/14 12:31 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>
>> Kurt Griffiths wrote:
>>
>>> Kudos to Balaji for working so hard on this. I really appreciate his
>>> candid feedback on both frameworks.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed, that analysis is very much appreciated.
>>
>> From the Technical Committee perspective, we put a high weight on a
>> factor that was not included in the report results: consistency and
>> convergence between projects we commonly release in an integrated manner
>> every 6 months. There was historically a lot of deviation, but as we add
>> more projects that deviation is becoming more costly. We want developers
>> to be able to jump from one project to another easily, and we want
>> convergence from an operators perspective.
>>
>> Individual projects are obviously allowed to pick the best tool in their
>> toolbox. But the TC may also decide to let projects live out of the
>> "integrated release" if we feel they would add too much divergence in.
>>
>
>
> My only concern in this case - I'm not sure if this has been discussed
> or written somewhere - is to define what the boundaries of that
> divergence are. For instance, and I know this will sound quite biased,
> I don't think there's anything wrong on supporting a *set* of wsgi
> frameworks. To be fair, there's already a set since currently
> integrated projects use webob, swob and Pecan.
>

Only one project is using swob, and it is unlikely that will change. The
other projects are mostly using the legacy oslo framework or Pecan,
although a few are using Flask (perhaps based on ceilometer's initial
experimentation with it?).

As I understand it, all of the integrated projects have looked at Pecan,
and are anticipating the transition. Most have no reason to create a new
API version, and therefore build a new API service to avoid introducing
incompatibilities by rebuilding the existing API with a new tool. This
aligns with the plan when Pecan was proposed as a standard.

Doug


>
> The point I'd like to get at is that as a general rule we probably
> shouldn't limit the set of supported libraries to just 1.


> Cheers,
> Flavio
>
> --
> @flaper87
> Flavio Percoco
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140319/f88d4b30/attachment.html>