Open Stack

I’d rather suggest doing in several iteration by replacing several resources by Pecan’s implementations.
Doing that in one big patch-set will make reviewing very painful, so some bad things might be not noticed.


> On 04 Dec 2014, at 14:01, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnitsky at mirantis.com> wrote:
> 
> Ok, guys,
> 
> It became obvious that most of us either vote for Pecan or abstain from voting.
> 
> So I propose to stop fighting this battle (Flask vs Pecan) and start
> thinking about moving to Pecan. You know, there are many questions
> that need to be discussed (such as 'should we change API version' or
> 'should be it done iteratively or as one patchset').
> 
> - Igor
> 
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:
>> Choosing the right instrument for the job in an open source community involves choosing technologies that the community is familiar/comfortable with as well, as it will allow you access to a greater pool of developers.
>> 
>> With that in mind then, I'd add:
>> Pro Pecan, blessed by the OpenStack community, con Flask, not.
>> 
>> Kevin
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Nikolay Markov [nmarkov at mirantis.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 9:00 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Nailgun] Web framework
>> 
>> I didn't participate in that discussion, but here are topics on Flask
>> cons from your link. I added some comments.
>> 
>> - Cons
>>    - db transactions a little trickier to manage, but possible  #
>> what is trickier? Flask uses pure SQLalchemy or a very thin wrapper
>>    - JSON built-in but not XML # the only one I agree with, but does
>> Pecan have it?
>>    - some issues, not updated in a while  # last commit was 3 days ago
>>    - No Python 3 support  # full Python 3 support fro a year or so already
>>    - Not WebOb  # can it even be considered as a con?
>> 
>> I'm not trying to argue with you or community principles, I'm just
>> trying to choose the right instrument for the job.
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2014 10:53 AM, Nikolay Markov wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, the OpenStack community is also about a shared set of tools,
>>>>> development methodologies, and common perspectives.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I completely agree with you, Jay, but the same principle may be
>>>> applied much wider. Why Openstack Community decided to use its own
>>>> unstable project instead of existing solution, which is widely used in
>>>> Python community? To avoid being a team player? Or, at least, why it's
>>>> recommended way even if it doesn't provide the same features other
>>>> frameworks have for a long time already? I mean, there is no doubt
>>>> everyone would use stable and technically advanced tool, but imposing
>>>> everyone to use it by force with a simple hope that it'll become
>>>> better from this is usually a bad approach.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This conversation was had a long time ago, was thoroughly thought-out and
>>> discussed at prior summits and the ML:
>>> 
>>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/grizzly-common-wsgi-frameworks
>>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/havana-common-wsgi
>>> 
>>> I think it's unfair to suggest that the OpenStack community decided "to use
>>> its own unstable project instead of existing solution".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> -jay
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141204/c34cfe8f/attachment.pgp>