[openstack-dev] [all] Maintaining httplib2 python library

Doug Wiegley dougwig at parksidesoftware.com
Thu Mar 17 22:04:57 UTC 2016

> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:51 AM, Ian Cordasco <sigmavirus24 at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Dague <sean at dague.net>
> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: March 14, 2016 at 09:41:02
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Maintaining httplib2 python library
>> On 03/14/2016 10:24 AM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Davanum Srinivas  
>>> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)  
>>> Date: March 14, 2016 at 09:18:50
>>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)  
>>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [all] Maintaining httplib2 python library
>>>> Team,
>>>> fyi, http://bitworking.org/news/2016/03/an_update_on_httplib2
>>>> We have httplib2 in our global requirements and lots of projects are
>>>> using it[1]. Is there anyone willing to step up?
>>> Is it really worth our time to dedicate extra resources to that? Glance has been discussing  
>> (but it's been a low priority) to switing all our dependence on httplib2 to requests (and  
>> maybe urllib3 directly) as necessary.
>>> We have other tools and libraries we can use without taking over maintenance of yet another  
>> library.
>>> I think the better question than "Can people please maintain this for the community?"  
>> is "What benefits does httplib2 have over something that is actively maintained (and  
>> has been actively maintaiend) like urllib3, requests, etc.?"
>>> And then we can (and should) also ask "Why have we been using this? How much work do cores  
>> think it would be to remove this from our global requirements?"
>> +1.
>> Here is the non comprehensive list of usages based on what trees I
>> happen to have checked out (which is quite a few, but not all of
>> OpenStack for sure).
>> I think before deciding to take over ownership of an upstream lib (which
>> is a large commitment over space and time), we should figure out the
>> migration cost. All the uses in Tempest come from usage in Glance IIRC
>> (and dealing with chunked encoding).
>> Neutron seems to use it for a couple of proxies, but that seems like
>> requests/urllib3 might be sufficient.
> The Neutron team should talk to Cory Benfield (CC'd) and myself more about this if they run into problems. requests and urllib3 are a little limited with respect to proxies due to limitations in httplib itself.
> Both of us might be able to dedicate time during the day to fix this if Neutron/OpenStack have specific requirements that requests is not currently capable of supporting.

Looks like neutron is using it to do HTTP requests via unix domain sockets. Unless I’m missing something, requests doesn’t support that directly. There are a couple of other libs that do, or we could monkey patch the socket. Or modify the agents to use localhost.


>> I suspect Glance is really the lynchpin here (as it actually does some
>> low level stuff with it). If there can be a Glance plan to get off of
>> it, the rest can follow pretty easily.
> I'm in a meeting right now, but I think I will be able to lead a spike to get Glance off of this if the rest of the Glance team is okay with it.
> --  
> Ian Cordasco
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list