Open Stack

Josh, thanks for pointing this out and in being hospitable to an outsider.

Oslo is definitely some of what I was looking for. As you stated, the fact that there is an extensive review system with high participation, that this alone organically leads to particular trends in sw design. I will have to read more about ‘specs', as I don’t quite get what they are and how they are different from blueprints.

When I said "What encourages or describes good design in OpenStack?”, I meant, what mechanism's/qualities/artifact's/whatever create code that is well-received, well-used, efficient. effective, secure… basically: successful from a wider-ecosystem standpoint. It sounds to me like much is built into 1) the detailed system of reviews, 2) an informal hierarchy of wise technicians, and now 3) modularization efforts like this Oslo. Did I summarize this adequately?

What artifacts were you going to send me at?
I have still yet to find a good encompassing architecture diagram or white paper.

Thanks again!
-N

> On Feb 3, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at fastmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Nick Yeates wrote:
>> I have been scouring OpenStack artifacts to find examples of what
>> encourages good software design / patterns / architecture in the wider
>> system and code. The info will be used in teaching university students.
>> I suppose it would be good for new developers of the community too.
>> 
>> I found hacking.rst files, along with blueprints and bugs and code
>> reviews, but cant piece together a full picture of how good architecture
>> and design are encouraged via process and/or documents.
>> - Architecture descriptions (ex: http://www.aosabook.org/en/index.html )?
>> - Code standards?
>> - Design rules of thumb?
>> I see the Design Summits, but have not yet found in-depth design
>> recommendations or a process.
> 
> Perhaps oslo is a good start? It starts to feel that good patterns begin either there or in projects, and then those good patterns start to move into a shared location (or library) and then get adopted by others.
> 
> As for a process, the spec process is part of it IMHO, organically it also happens by talking to people in the community and learning who the experienced folks are and what there thoughts are on specs, code (the review process) but that one (organic) is harder to pinpoint exactly when it happens.
> 
>> 
>> Does it come from Developers personal experience, or are there some sort
>> of artifacts to point at? I am looking for both specific examples of
>> design patterns, but more a meta of that. What encourages or describes
>> good design in OpenStack?
> 
> As an oslo core, I can point u at artifacts, but it depends on having more information on what u want, because 'good design' and what encourages it or discourages it is highly relative to the persons definition of the word 'good' (which is connected itself to many things, experience, time in community... prior designs/code/systems built...).
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Nick Yeates
>> IRC: nyeates (freenode)
>> 
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev