Open Stack

Hi,

Le mardi 8 avril 2014, 10:54:24 Julien Danjou a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 07 2014, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> > We can avoid adding to the problem by putting each new library in its
> > own package. We still want the Oslo name attached for libraries that
> > are really only meant to be used by OpenStack projects, and so we need
> > a naming convention. I'm not entirely happy with the "crammed
> > together" approach for oslotest and oslosphinx. At one point Dims and
> > I talked about using a prefix "oslo_" instead of just "oslo", so we
> > would have "oslo_db", "oslo_i18n", etc. That's also a bit ugly,
> > though. Opinions?
> 
> Honestly, I think it'd be better to not have oslo at all and use
> independent – if possible explicit – names for everything

I agree.

"oslo" name remembers me the "zope" fiasco. Except of zope.interfaces and the 
ZODB, I don't think that any Zope module was widely used outside Zope and it 
was a big fail. Because of that, Zope 3 restarted almost from scratch with 
small independent modules.

"oslo" and "openstack.common" look more and more like Zope bloated modules. 
For example, Oslo Incubator has 44 dependencies. Who outside OpenStack would 
like to use a module which has 44 dependencies? Especially if you need a 
single module like timeutils.

"nova.openstack.common.timeutils" name doesn't look correct: the Zen of Python 
says "Flat is better than nested": "xxx.timeutils" would be better. Same 
remark for "oslo.config.cfg" => "xxx.cfg".

Choosing a name is hard. Dropping "oslo" requires to find a completly new name. 
For example, "oslo.config" cannot be renamed to "config", this name is already 
used on PyPI. Same issue for "messaging" (and "message" is also reserved).

"oslo.rootwrap" can be simply renamed to "rootwrap".

Other suggestions:

* olso.config => cmdconfig
* olso.messaging => msqqueue

Victor