Open Stack

Hi,
I have a number of things to say here:

1.       Great work in getting the DB into the common and ironing out the issues

2.       As far as I know only Neutron and Nova are making use of the common DB code. Neutron has been using this since the beginning of H2 (this did not resolve all of the issues that we had and we had) and Nova has just recently upgraded to the latest DB code (this was a few weeks ago).

3.        In general I like the idea of having a separate lib for this but have a number of reservations regarding the timing and stability:

a.       I do not think that this has been running long enough in Neutron and Nova for us to give it a stamp of approval (the common CFG code was at least one cycle as common code prior to moving into its own lib). I think that in Neutron we still have a number of issues with load on the DB. I need to double check on this.

b.      I think that the beginning of Icehouse is a good time. When we moved to the CFG library there were a number of hickups and issues along the way. I think that Mark (oslo PTL) can elaborate a little more on this. Timing is essential.

c.       In addition to this the migration from Neutron using it own DB implementation to the common required changes in the CFG library (we needed backward compatibility regarding configurations). Not sure if this may be the same for other projects migrating to the common code.
In short I'd like to see this wait till the beginning of Icehouse and would strongly suggest that we have a session on this at summit - it will certainly affect all of the projects using the common code.
Thanks
Gary

From: Joe Gordon [mailto:joe.gordon0 at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 5:53 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal oslo.db lib



On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com<mailto:mordred at inaugust.com>> wrote:


On 08/16/2013 09:52 AM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We (OpenStack contributors) done a really huge and great work around DB
> code in Grizzly and Havana to unify it, put all common parts into
> oslo-incubator, fix bugs, improve handling of sqla exceptions, provide
> unique keys, and to use  this code in different projects instead of
> custom implementations. (well done!)
>
> oslo-incubator db code is already used by: Nova, Neutron, Cinder,
> Ironic, Ceilometer.
>
> In this moment we finished work around Glance:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/36207/
>
> And working around Heat and Keystone.
>
> So almost all projects use this code (or planing to use it)
>
> Probably it is the right time to start work around moving oslo.db code
> to separated lib.
>
> We (Roman, Viktor and me) will be glad to help to make oslo.db lib:
>
> E.g. Here are two drafts:
> 1) oslo.db lib code: https://github.com/malor/oslo.db
> 2) And here is this lib in action:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/42159/
> <https://review.openstack..org/#/c/42159/>

Based on the discussion in the following thread, http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-August/013746.html, and the amount of work listed as TODO there, I am concerned about the maturity of the API that oslo.db would produce, I think db may need to incubate longer in order to produce a stable API.

FYI: https://github.com/openstack/oslo-incubator/blob/master/MAINTAINERS shows db is orphaned ... which doesn't sound very accurate.


+1

Great job Boris!

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130819/3ced6d0f/attachment-0001.html>