Open Stack

Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-06-20 10:04:06 -0400:
> On 06/17/2016 11:23 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> > +1000 yes to that. Now the devil could be in the details, in particular
> > how we implement the WSGI server, the corresponding WSGI app and the
> > associated routing, and that's exactly the problem below.
> 
> We shouldn't be implementing a WSGI server *at all*. The fact that one 
> cannot run Nova inside a true WSGI server (i.e. Apache/mod_wsgi, uwsgi, 
> etc) is a bad thing.
> 
> > I certainly understand the concerns of adding yet another library. To be
> > honest, I tend to even agree with the statement that we could possibly
> > use Routes without explicitly use nova.wsgi, right ?
> >
> > In the review, you explain why you don't trust Routes and I respect
> > that. That said, are those issues logged as real problems for our API
> > consumers, which are mostly client libraries that we own and other
> > projects we know, like Horizon ?
> >
> > If that is a problem for those, is there something we could improve,
> > instead of just getting rid of it ?
> 
> For the record, I'm very much in favor of the approach Chris has taken 
> in a framework-less implementation with nothing other than the (tiny) 
> selector library as a dependency. I'd like to see the work move forward.
> 
> Best,
> -jay
> 

It seems like choosing to avoid an existing framework is just going
to eventually result in another new framework evolving organically
as things like common aspects like error handling and transactions
are refactored out of of individual handlers.

Is it really so bad to just pick a tool already being used in some
portion of the rest of the community?

Doug