Open Stack

On 08/08/13 19:01 -0400, Adam Young wrote:
>On 08/08/2013 07:05 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>Totally. Code is not intended to live in oslo-incubator forever and
>>we're having increasing success in moving stuff out:
>>
>>https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo#Libraries
>
>Keystone has, I think, validated the set of oslo libraries that it 
>uses:  gettext, jsontutils, importutils, crypto, and policy.

I think jsonutils needs to be re-factored before it can be in its own
package. We recently had a short thread[0] about whether its functionality
could / should be extended and some folks were suggesting to consider
to_primitive deprecated. We should clear that matter before moving it
to its own package.

As for policy, I think it still needs some more time. A bunch of code
in that module was recently changed[1] and not all projects have migrated
to the latest version (in my plate).

>gettext and jsontutils I'd be OK with these in the same library, but 
>split is fine. I think  we sync down gettext and jsontutils, more 
>often than any others.
>
>Should importutils stand alone?  Seems reasonable.
>
>Crypto is a pretty strong contender as well.  I think it might make 
>sense to move it to a single file instead of a subdir.
>
>Would it be possible for Keystone core to be considered the 
>maintaners of oslo.policy?  We seem to have the most people focused 
>on RBAC and policy enforcement, and it seems to be a natural fit. 
>Policy was origianlly under Keystone.
>
>We should also have an auth library.  I could see huge pieces of 
>python-keystone client ending up in there.  Again, this would 
>probably be best owned by the Keystone team, at least to start.
>

What about discussing this in our next Oslo meeting? 

Cheers,
FF

[0]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-June/009839.html

[1]
https://github.com/openstack/oslo-incubator/commit/1091b4f3bed9b0ad8c23e5db6d4a5cee15fc786c

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco