Open Stack

On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:27 PM, Julien Danjou <julien at danjou.info> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 19 2014, Kurt Griffiths wrote:
> 
>> That begs the question, *why* is that unlikely to change?
> 
> Because that project is Swift.

If you look at the Swift code, you'll see that swob is not a replacement for either Pecan or Falcon. swob was written to replace WebOb, and we documented why we did this. https://github.com/openstack/swift/blob/master/swift/common/swob.py#L23 It's an in-tree module written to remove a recurring pain point. swob has allowed the Swift team to focus their time on adding features and fixing bugs in other parts of the code.

Why don't we use Pecan or Falcon in Swift? Mostly because we don't need the functionality that they provide, and so there is no reason to go add a dependency (and thus increase packaging and install requirements on deployers). Now if there are other uses for swob outside of Swift, let's have a conversation about including it in an external library so we can all benefit.

---

The comparison that Balaji did between Falcon and Pecan looks like a very good overview. It gives information necessary to make an informed choice based on real data instead of "it's what everybody is doing". If you don't like some criteria reported on, I'm sure Balaji would be happy to see your comparison and evaluation.

We all want to make informed decisions based on data, not claims. Balaji's analysis is a great start on figuring out what the Marconi project should choose. As such, it seems that the Marconi team is the responsible party to make the right choice for their use case, after weighing all the factors.


--John



-------------- 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/20140319/0c384691/attachment.pgp>