[openstack-dev] [all][zaqar][cloudkitty] Default ports list

Thomas Herve therve at redhat.com
Thu Mar 10 14:10:24 UTC 2016

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> On 03/10/2016 08:40 AM, Thomas Herve wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Chris Dent <cdent+os at anticdent.org> wrote:
>>> +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).
>> Isn't devstack meant for development? Running the APIs in a WSGI
>> container like Apache or uwsgi makes for a terrible debugging
>> experience. Just this morning I had to prevent aodh from running in
>> Apache to be able to run it standalone.
>> Also, those apps that use WSGI still bind a different port. The fact
>> that it runs in Apache doesn't really solve the URLs problem.
> But they shouldn't. I do realize it's taking a while to get there, but
> this is the push to get rid of all these weird ports. The point is to
> get them all on 80 in a subpath or a separate domain.
> If projects use the pbr wsgi_script directive the wsgi script will run
> on wsgi ref on the commandline if you need that for debug -
> https://github.com/openstack/keystone/blob/4db54810e58ad86edb92869a608fb5630a6b99e5/setup.cfg#L75
> that was built to make this simpler.

Right, but if we move to everything in WSGI besides a subpath, you
won't be able to switch to the script easily. Unless you actually
implement that using a reverse proxy.

I totally understand the will to remove those ports from the final
product. I question whether it's the right choice for devstack. It
would seem that at least keeping those 'weird' ports for internal
consumption would be useful. It's not like we're close to use the 65K


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list