Open Stack

> It might be good to do a similar thing as Keystone does. We could keep
> python-tuskarclient focused only on Python bindings for Tuskar (but keep
> whatever CLI we already implemented there, for backwards compatibility),
> and implement CLI as a plugin to OpenStackClient. E.g. when you want to
> access Keystone v3 API features (e.g. domains resource), then
> python-keystoneclient provides only Python bindings, it no longer
> provides CLI.

+1

I've always liked the idea of separating out the bindings from the CLI 
itself.


> I think this is a nice approach because it allows the python-*client to
> stay thin for including within Python apps, and there's a common
> pluggable CLI for all projects (one top level command for the user). At
> the same time it would solve our naming problems (tuskarclient would
> stay, because it would be focused on Tuskar only) and we could reuse the
> already implemented other OpenStackClient plugins for anything on
> undercloud.
>
> We previously raised that OpenStackClient has more plugins (subcommands)
> that we need on undercloud and that could confuse users, but i'd say it
> might not be as troublesome to justify avoiding the OpenStackClient way.
> (Even if we decide that this is a big problem after all and OSC plugin
> is not enough, we should still probably aim for separating TripleO CLI
> and Tuskarclient in the future.)
>
> Jirka
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>