Open Stack

Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-06-21 08:00:50 -0400:
> On 06/21/2016 07:39 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > On 06/21/2016 05:43 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> >> Le 21/06/2016 10:04, Chris Dent a écrit :
> >>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Flask seems to be the most widely used and known WSGI framework so
> >>>> for consistency's sake, I'm recommending we just use it and not rock
> >>>> this boat. There are more important things to get hung up on than
> >>>> this battle right now.
> >>>
> >>> That seems perfectly reasonable. My main goal in starting the
> >>> discussion was to ensure that we reach some kind of consensus,
> >>> whatever it might be[1]. It won't be too much of an ordeal to
> >>> turn the existing pure WSGI stuff into Flask stuff.
> >>>
> >>> From my standpoint doing the initial development in straight WSGI
> >>> was a win as it allowed for a lot of clarity from the inside out.
> >>> Now that that development has shown the shape of the API we can
> >>> do what we need to do to make it clear from outside in.
> >>>
> >>> Next question: There's some support for not using Paste and
> >>> paste.ini. Is anyone opposed to that?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Given Flask is not something we support yet in Nova, could we discuss on
> >> that during either a Nova meeting, or maybe wait for the midcycle ?
> > 
> > I really don't want to wait for the mid-cycle. Happy to discuss in the
> > Nova meeting, but my preference is to have Chris just modify his patch
> > series to use Flask now and review it.
> > 
> >> To be honest, Chris and you were saying that you don't like Flask, and
> >> I'm a bit agreeing with you. Why now it's a good possibility ?
> > 
> > Because Doug persuaded me that the benefits of being consistent with
> > what the community is using outweigh my (and Chris') personal misgivings
> > about the particular framework.
> 
> Just to be clear....
> 
> http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=Flask%3E%3D0.10&i=nope&files=&repos=
> 
> Flask is used by 2 (relatively new) projects in OpenStack
> 
> If we look at the iaas base layer:
> 
> Keystone - custom WSGI with Routes / Paste
> Glance - WSME + Routes / Paste
> Cinder - custom WSGI with Routes / Paste
> Neutron - pecan + Routes / Paste
> Nova - custom WSGI with Routes / Paste
> 

When I see "custom WSGI" I have a few thoughts:

* custom == special snowflake. But REST API's aren't exactly novel.

* If using a framework means not writing or cargo culting any custom
WSGI code, that seems like a win for maintainability from the get go.

* If using a framework means handling errors more consistently, that
seems like a win for operators.

* I don't have a grasp on how much custom WSGI code is actually
involved. That would help us all evaluate the meaning of the statements
above (both yours, and mine).