[openstack-dev] [Fuel][Nailgun] Web framework
nmarkov at mirantis.com
Tue Dec 2 20:00:56 UTC 2014
Michael, we already solved all issues I described, and I just don't
want to solve them once again after moving to another framework. Also,
I think, nothing of these wishes contradicts with good API design.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Michael Krotscheck
<krotscheck at gmail.com> wrote:
> This sounds more like you need to pay off technical debt and clean up your
> On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 10:58:43 AM Nikolay Markov <nmarkov at mirantis.com>
>> Hello all,
>> I actually tried to use Pecan and even created a couple of PoCs, but
>> there due to historical reasons of how our API is organized it will
>> take much more time to implement all workarounds we need to issues
>> Pecan doesn't solve out of the box, like working with non-RESTful
>> URLs, reverse URL lookup, returning custom body in 404 response,
>> wrapping errors to JSON automatically, etc.
>> As far as I see, each OpenStack project implements its own workarounds
>> for these issues, but still it requires much less men and hours for us
>> to move to Flask-Restful instead of Pecan, because all these problems
>> are already solved there.
>> BTW, I know a lot of pretty big projects using Flask (it's the second
>> most popular Web framework after Django in Python Web community), they
>> even have their own "hall of fame":
>> http://flask.pocoo.org/community/poweredby/ .
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Ryan Brown <rybrown at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On 12/02/2014 09:55 AM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
>> >> Hi, Sebastian,
>> >> Thank you for raising this topic again.
>> >> [snip]
>> >> Personally, I'd like to use Flask instead of Pecan, because first one
>> >> is more production-ready tool and I like its design. But I believe
>> >> this should be resolved by voting.
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Igor
>> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski
>> >> <skalinowski at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> >>> Hi all,
>> >>> [snip explanation+history]
>> >>> Best,
>> >>> Sebastian
>> > Given that Pecan is used for other OpenStack projects and has plenty of
>> > builtin functionality (REST support, sessions, etc) I'd prefer it for a
>> > number of reasons.
>> > 1) Wouldn't have to pull in plugins for standard (in Pecan) things
>> > 2) Pecan is built for high traffic, where Flask is aimed at much smaller
>> > projects
>> > 3) Already used by other OpenStack projects, so common patterns can be
>> > reused as oslo libs
>> > Of course, the Flask community seems larger (though the average flask
>> > project seems pretty small).
>> > I'm not sure what determines "production readiness", but it seems to me
>> > like Fuel developers fall more in Pecan's target audience than in
>> > Flask's.
>> > My $0.02,
>> > Ryan
>> > --
>> > Ryan Brown / Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> Best regards,
>> Nick Markov
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
More information about the OpenStack-dev