Open Stack

On 19/03/14 11:20 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
>    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.


Yeah, what I wanted to say is that it is arguable that we should add
another framework (falcon) to this already existing set of frameworks.
Although, it is being reduced to just 2 which still raises my previous
question:


>
>    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. 

... but perhaps decide in a per-case basis.


Cheers,
Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140319/3230a635/attachment-0001.pgp>