Open Stack

On 03/06/13 11:28 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
>On 06/03/2013 09:14 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> You could also just include the _type and _value, leaving the
>> interpretation of that value up to the receiver.
>>
>> At the summit there was a proposal in the nova track to support sending
>> arbitrary objects over RPC transparently as part of the versioned object
>> session [1]. I think the final proposal involved using a registry of
>> types with serializers and deserializers. Datetimes could just be
>> another type in that registry system.
>
>Yes, and I would encourage any and all projects affected by this to go
>down a similar path.  This project is well under way.
>
>  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/rpc-support-for-objects
>
>  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/unified-object-model
>

Interesting, I didn't know about unified-object-model.

As for glance, we need to have basic serialization for datetimes
without supporting more complex objects and not based on current RPC
code but HTTP communication. I gave a quick look at the code written
for unified-object-model and it seems to be way too tight to Nova. Are
you guys willing to make it more generic and contribute to oslo? Am I
missing something? Dan?

>As for the current jsonutils code, I would just leave it how it is and
>avoid making any format changes.  It's going to break backwards
>compatibility for code that uses it right now.

I understand the concern but, if there's room for improvement, I bet
we can find a good way to not break it. My concern is that this seems
to be a common issue and supporting it shouldn't require a big
re-factor, instead, it should be small - relative to the project - and
straightforward,  IMHO.

As a gentle clarification, what I'm trying to add is support for json
serialization / de-serialization of datetime objects. For more complex
objects I'd definitely go down unified-object-model's way.

Cheers,
FF

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco