Open Stack

On 11/13/2014 01:12 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 11 November 2014 13:30, Angus Salkeld <asalkeld at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I just wanted to make sure we are all under the same understanding of the
>> outcomes and what the next steps for the versioned objects session are.
>>
>> 1. There is a lot of interest in other projects using oslo versioned objects
>> and it is worth progressing with this
>> (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127532).
>> 2. jpipes and jharlow suggested experimenting/investigating google protocol
>> buffers (https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/) instead of  the
>> custom serialization and version code. This *could* be an implementation
>> detail, but also could make the adoption by nova more complicated (as it has
>> a different mechanism in place).
>> 3. vish brought up one draw back of versioned objects: the difficulty in
>> cherry picking commits for stable branches - Is this a show stopper?.
>>
>> Next steps:
>> - Jay suggested making a second spec that would lay out what it would look
>> like if we used google protocol buffers.
>> - Dan: do you need some help in making this happen, do we need some
>> volunteers?
>> - Are there any other concrete things we can do to get this usable by other
>> projects in a timely manner?
>
> +1 on protocol buffers, but perhaps
> http://kentonv.github.io/capnproto/ could be considered: its protocol
> buffers v2 basically - from one of the originators of protocol
> buffers. It has Python support available too, just like protocol
> buffers.

Very nice indeed. Been reading through the Cap'n'proto documentation and 
it looks like a great improvement over GPB.

Definitely something to look into.

I sent an email privately to Angus and Dan this morning saying that I 
personally don't have the bandwidth to do a PoC that would use GPB as 
implementation of the serialization, schema representation, and 
versioning engine. I support the idea of using GPB, but I also recognize 
it's a large amount of work.

Best,
-jay