Open Stack

On Sun, 2013-05-19 at 07:51 +0300, Gary Kotton wrote:
> On 05/18/2013 06:57 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > Gary,
> >
> > We are at a stalemate between your -1 and Dolph Mathews's -1 on what
> > the naming of the group in session.py [1]
> 
> I'd say that we are between a rock and a hard place :)
> 
> Below is a partial mapping on how the projects have the section and key 
> names for the SQL database:
> 
> Nova: Section - DEFAULT; Key - sql_connection
> Cinder: Section - DEFAULT; Key - sql_connection
> Glance: Section - DEFAULT; Key - sql_connection
> Quantum: Section - DATABASE; key - sql_connection
> Keystone: Section - SQL; key - connection
> 
> My concern is the upgrade process and being backward compatible to the 
> existing configuration. The code that you have done works great for 
> Nova, Cinder and Glance. Problem is that it does not work for Quantum 
> and Keystone.
> 
> Is there anyway of ensuring that the Quantum and Keystone configurations 
> are also supported. I am not sure that the common configuration module 
> supports more than one deprecated section and key name. If so great.
> 
> I am really impartial to the section name. I prefer database but can be 
> easily swayed as it is not something that is written in stone. But What 
> I really do think is important is that we do not break things when going 
> from Grizzly to Havana.

I think 'database' is a fine section name - remember, the section names
are there to help users rather than a name-spacing tool to keep
independent pieces of code (like an alternative DB driver) from
clashing.

If we say that 'database' is the right thing, we can merge this patch
into oslo-incubator and have Quantum switch over to the common DB code.

Supporting legacy keystone configs with sql.connection using something
like dims cfg patch makes sense too, but we can do that at a later point
since it seems like Quantum is the project most eager to adopt the
common code now.

Cheers,
Mark.