Open Stack

On 10/03/16 13:28 +0000, Chris Dent wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Sean Dague wrote:
>
>>These are HTTP services. They really shoudn't be claiming new ports,
>>they should be running on a real webserver on 80 or 443.
>>
>>There is some legacy there with the original services that we are
>>churning through. It would be nice if new services *started* with
>>staying on wsgi only, and stopped grabbing random ports.
>
>+many. It would be great if we just got rid of the runnable web
>servers in the projects and just expose wsgi apps (the tools like
>devstack etc mounted under whatever the available server is).

FWIW, Zaqar doesn't ship a wsgi container. It's a pure wsgi app. I think the
issue Fei Long is raising here is w.r.t the gate. From a Zaqar perspective, I
wouldn't be too worried and as far as the gate goes, I think it'd be more than
fine to just switch from using wsgiref in the gate to using httpd.

This is to say, I agree with Chris's and Sean's statements.

>Also, as already stated sort of vaguely earlier in the thread, isn't
>it the case that if you aren't using the service catalog to find an
>endpoint, you're doing it wrong?

++

Flavio

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160310/09e62f4d/attachment.pgp>