[openstack-dev] [oslo] Can we stop global requirements update?
mbayer at redhat.com
Mon May 22 01:22:45 UTC 2017
On 05/20/2017 12:04 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Fri, May 19 2017, Mike Bayer wrote:
>> IMO that's a bug for them.
> Of course it's a bug. IIRC Mehdi tried to fix it without much success.
>> I'm inspired to see that Keystone, Nova etc. are
>> able to move between and eventlet backend and a mod_wsgi backend. IMO
>> eventlet is really not needed for those services that present a REST interface.
>> Although for a message queue with lots of long-running connections that receive
>> events, that's a place where I *would* want to use a polling / non-blocking
>> model. But I'd use it explicitly, not with monkeypatching.
>> I'd ask why not oslo.cotyledon but it seems there's a faction here that is
>> overall moving out of the Openstack umbrella in any case.
> Not oslo because it can be used by other projects than just OpenStack.
> And it's a condition of success. As Mehdi said, Oslo has been deserted
> in the recent cycles, so putting a lib there as very little chance of
> seeing its community and maintenance help grow. Whereas trying to reach
> the whole Python ecosystem is more likely to get traction.
> As a maintainer of SQLAlchemy I'm surprised you even suggest that. Or do
> you plan on doing oslo.sqlalchemy? ;)
I do oslo.db (which also is not "abandoned" in any way). the point of
oslo is that it is an openstack-centric mediation layer between some
common service/library and openstack.
it looks like there already is essentially such a layer for cotyledon.
I'd just name it "oslo.cotyledon" :) or oslo. something. We have a
moose. It's cool.
>> Basically I think openstack should be getting off eventlet in a big way so I
>> guess my sentiment here is that the Gnocchi / Cotyledon /etc. faction is just
>> splitting off rather than serving as any kind of direction for the rest of
>> Openstack to start looking. But that's only an impression, maybe projects will
>> use Cotyledon anyway. If every project goes off and uses something completely
>> different though, then I think we're losing. The point of oslo was to prevent
> I understand your concern and opinion. I think you, me and Mehdi don't
> have the experience as contributors in OpenStack. I invite you to try
> moving any major OpenStack project to something like oslo.service2 or
> Cotyledon or to achieve any technical debt resolution in OpenStack to
> have a view on hard it is to tackle. Then you'll see where we stand. :)
Sure, that's an area where I think the whole direction of openstack
would benefit from more centralized planning, but i have been here just
enough to observe that this kind of thing has been discussed before and
it is of course very tricky to implement.
More information about the OpenStack-dev