Open Stack

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:24:31 -0700
Doug Hellmann <doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to see this seriously considered.  I also understand
> > that it's more work and those driving the v3 API want to make sure
> > it gets completed.  What do you guys think?  How much extra work
> > would this be? Would recruiting someone else to help make it
> > manageable?
> >
> 
> I'm available to at least offer advice about getting started,
> debugging, and code reviews. I should have some cycles for coding in
> a few weeks, too.
> 

As Russell mention my main concern would be making sure we get the
v3 API work complete during the Havana cycle. And we do have the extra
constraint at the start of needing to get the new extension framework 
in before the extensions can be ported to the v3 area as well as
needing to leave enough time near the end of the havana cycle for the
tempest tests to be ported as well.

That being said I'm quite open to the idea if its going to make things
better in the long term. I don't know much about it - is there anything
you can suggest I look at to get up to speed with Pecan/WSME?

A lot of the v3 API work is parallelisable once at least the barebones
for the new extension framwork lands.

If you have any spare cycles I'd really appreciate any feedback
you have about the proposed extension framework for Nova as its based
on stevedore and what ceilometer does:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/27276/
https://etherpad.openstack.org/NovaAPIExtensionFramework
https://github.com/cyeoh/nova/tree/v3_api_extension_framework

Regards,

Chris
-- 
cyeoh at au1.ibm.com