Open Stack

Hi,
I have drafted https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/better-defined-apis and have up as an example (https://review.openstack.org/266304) 
for people to chew on...
Thanks
Gary



On 1/12/16, 1:08 PM, "Smigiel, Dariusz" <dariusz.smigiel at intel.com> wrote:

>> 
>> Hi,
>> At the moment private methods are used all over the place. Examples for
>> this are the address pairs and the security groups. If you do a grep of the ML2
>> plugin you will see these innocent private methods being used.
>> The end goal would be for us to have these as public methods.
>> Thanks
>> Gary
>> 
>
>OK, get it. But just wanted to know, what is the outcome from email discussion.
>Do we need to match changed/removed private methods with deprecation warning,
>or just modify and tell plugins: "deal with it" :)
>
>BR,
>Dariusz (dasm) Smigiel
>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/12/16, 11:52 AM, "Smigiel, Dariusz" <dariusz.smigiel at intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> >> Doug Wiegley <dougwig at parksidesoftware.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Jan 11, 2016, at 2:42 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrachys at redhat.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sean M. Collins <sean at coreitpro.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 07:50:47AM PST, Chris Dent wrote:
>> >> >>>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, Gary Kotton wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> The commit
>> >> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> 3A__github.com
>> >> >>>>> _openstack_neutron_commit_5d53dfb8d64186-
>> 2D&d=BQICAg&c=Sqcl0Ez6
>> >> >>>>> M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-
>> uEs&r=VlZxHpZBmzzkWT5jqz9JYBk8Y
>> >> >>>>> Teq9N3-
>> diTlNj4GyNc&m=JeGcqDfJO3uBpHFJtMpFdfKGvUvygEhoI7bztB14S9
>> >> >>>>> w&s=6QRgfZxiJsf6Mgon-2G_2DUSuUWXKQED2HH38t_TGz8&e=
>> >> >>>>> b5b1d2f356fbff8f222e15d1b2 may break the decomposed plugins
>> >> >>>>> that make use of the method _get_tenant_id_for_create
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Just out of curiosity, is it not standard practice that a plugin
>> >> >>>> shouldn't use a private method?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> +1 - hopefully decomposed plugins will audit their code and look
>> >> >>> +for
>> >> >>> other calls to private methods.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The fact that it broke *aas repos too suggests that we were not
>> >> >> showing a proper example to those decomposed. I think it can be
>> >> >> reasonable to restore the method until N, with a deprecation
>> >> >> message, as Garry suggested in his patch. Especially since there
>> >> >> is no actual burden to keep the method for another cycle.
>> >> >
>> >> > The neutron community has been really lax about enforcing private
>> >> methods.
>> >> > And while we should absolutely reverse that trend, likely we should
>> >> > give some warning. I agree with not going whole hog on that until N.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd suggest putting in a debtcollector reference when putting the
>> >> > method
>> >> back.
>> >>
>> >> Done. https://review.openstack.org/265315
>> >
>> >
>> >Do we have any consensus about treating private methods? Any general
>> tips about it, or every time should it be left for author decision?
>> >
>> >Should we use deprecation warning for all refactored private methods,
>> treating it as "API" and rewriting underneath code?
>> >
>> >Thanks, Dariusz (dasm) Smigiel
>> >
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev