Open Stack

One of the goals of neutron-lib is to reduce the chances of a code change in
neutron core breaking other repos. We want to get to a point where no repo
imports anything from neutron core.

So if there is some value shared between neutron core and one or more other
repos, then the value should go in neutron-lib.

Your question seems to be around "neutron reference implementation", but I
don't think that is relevant to what goes into neutron-lib.

You could argue that the values in neutron_lib/constants.py are big mix of
unrelated items, and that we may want to divide them up into separate
<foo>_constants.py modules. But then I could argue that would proliferate the
number of imports required for many repos.

Gal Sagie <gal.sagie at gmail.com> wrote:
> For example references to the various different agents which are an
> implementation details to me
> 
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Henry Gessau <HenryG at gessau.net
> <mailto:HenryG at gessau.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Gal Sagie <gal.sagie at gmail.com <mailto:gal.sagie at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > Hello all,
>     >
>     > I have recently came across some missing constants in neutron-lib and sent
>     > a patch but i wanted to try and understand the scope of the lib.
>     >
>     > I see that the Neutron lib consist of many definitions which are actually
>     > part of the reference implementation and are not really "generic" Neutron
>     > parts.
> 
>     Can you give specific examples of 'not really generic' constants?
> 
>     > I am wondering if this is the right approach, especially since i think an
>     > end goal is to split between the two (some day..)
>     >
>     > My suggestion would be to at least split these two in the neutron-lib, but maybe
>     > i miss understood the scope of the lib