Open Stack

On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 10:01 -0700, Dan Smith wrote:
> > Wrt Oslo, the serialization hook needs to go in from the start,
> > obviously, but I'd recommend developing the base object class in Nova
> > in a way (e.g. by abstracting away nova-isms) that it can easily be
> > moved to Oslo later at the moment when another project wants to use
> > it. Starting it in oslo-incubator when no other projects are using it
> > would just be unnecessary overhead for you.
> 
> Cool, that sounds good to me.
> 
> Right now, we embed special fields in the serialized version of the
> object, such as "nova_object.name" (like the VERSION_KEY stuff does
> with "oslo.version"). Should we go ahead and use "oslo" in such things
> as we're cooking this up in nova so that the move to oslo is easy?

It depends whether you want it to be 'nova' or 'oslo' when this ends up
in a proper library - the former makes sense where you want each project
to have its own namespace (e.g. control_exchange to namespace topics)
and the former makes sense where you want interop between projects (e.g.
the keys of the RPC message envelope)

Cheers,
Mark.