[openstack-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

Jay Pipes jaypipes at gmail.com
Thu Apr 16 18:13:11 UTC 2015

On 04/16/2015 12:45 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
>> On 04/16/2015 07:41 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
>>> * Should projects relying on WSME start thinking about migrating
>>> their APIs
>>> to another technology?
> I think this may be the way to go. The intent of WSME is admirable
> (the multiprotocol stack) but the execution leads to unwarranted
> complexity.
> I think a framework more specifically dedicated to JSON APIs, or
> even just being "webby" and correct would be better. Something
> _much_ simpler and _much_ more aligned with WSGI.

Amen. Honestly, I never liked WSME and now that projects are no longer 
supporting XML, I don't see any reason to continue using it. Like you 
say, it adds way too much unnecessary complexity to the API framework, 
IMHO. Better to just use a simple JSONSchema framework (using the 
jsonschema Python library) to do input validations and have schema 
definitions in JSONSchema instead of random attribute factories like:

name = wsme.wsattr(wtypes.text, mandatory=True)

in model classes tightly coupled via @wsme_pecan.wsexpose decorators to 
controller class methods.

> One thing I would _love_ is for us to get away from object dispatch
> and use explicit routing. Because it's, uh, explicit. But that's a
> personal preference.

Personally, I prefer the Falcon approach to routing, which is what I 
call "explicit object dispatch" ;)

class ThingsResource:

     def on_get(self, req, resp, user_id):
         ... do some stuff
         resp.set_header('X-Powered-By', 'Small Furry Creatures')
         resp.status = falcon.HTTP_200

things = ThingsResource()
app = falcon.API()
app.add_route('/{user_id}/things', things)

> On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> Or - as you bring up - perhaps our use of this has wound up having been
>> a mistake and it's time to cut the cords. The original intent was to get
>> all of openstack using the same framework, but this has not come to
>> pass. :(

Right. For various reasons, including resistance to the Pecan/WSME 
framework in general.

> Was there any hope that would be fulfilled by having everyone on the
> same framework other than "it's more tidy"?

Not sure :(


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list