[openstack-dev] Pecan Evaluation for Marconi

Doug Hellmann doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com
Wed Mar 19 15:20:22 UTC 2014

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 19/03/14 12:31 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Kurt Griffiths wrote:
>>> Kudos to Balaji for working so hard on this. I really appreciate his
>>> candid feedback on both frameworks.
>> Indeed, that analysis is very much appreciated.
>> From the Technical Committee perspective, we put a high weight on a
>> factor that was not included in the report results: consistency and
>> convergence between projects we commonly release in an integrated manner
>> every 6 months. There was historically a lot of deviation, but as we add
>> more projects that deviation is becoming more costly. We want developers
>> to be able to jump from one project to another easily, and we want
>> convergence from an operators perspective.
>> Individual projects are obviously allowed to pick the best tool in their
>> toolbox. But the TC may also decide to let projects live out of the
>> "integrated release" if we feel they would add too much divergence in.
> My only concern in this case - I'm not sure if this has been discussed
> or written somewhere - is to define what the boundaries of that
> divergence are. For instance, and I know this will sound quite biased,
> I don't think there's anything wrong on supporting a *set* of wsgi
> frameworks. To be fair, there's already a set since currently
> integrated projects use webob, swob and Pecan.

Only one project is using swob, and it is unlikely that will change. The
other projects are mostly using the legacy oslo framework or Pecan,
although a few are using Flask (perhaps based on ceilometer's initial
experimentation with it?).

As I understand it, all of the integrated projects have looked at Pecan,
and are anticipating the transition. Most have no reason to create a new
API version, and therefore build a new API service to avoid introducing
incompatibilities by rebuilding the existing API with a new tool. This
aligns with the plan when Pecan was proposed as a standard.


> The point I'd like to get at is that as a general rule we probably
> shouldn't limit the set of supported libraries to just 1.

> Cheers,
> Flavio
> --
> @flaper87
> Flavio Percoco
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140319/f88d4b30/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list