Open Stack

On 05/23/2016 03:34 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote:
> 
> On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-23 17:07:36 +0100:
>>> On Mon, 23 May 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>> Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-20 14:16:15 +0100:
>>>>> I don't think language does (or should) have anything to do with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is whether or not the tool (whether service or
>>>>> dependent library) is useful to and usable outside the openstack-stack.
>>>>> For example gnocchi is useful to openstack but you can use it with other
>>>>> stuff, therefore _not_ openstack. More controversially: swift can be
>>>>> usefully used all by its lonesome: _not_ openstack.
>>>>
> 
> Making a tool which is useful outside of the OpenStack context just
> seems like good software engineering - it seems odd that we would try
> and ensure our tools do not fit this description. Fortunately, many (or
> even most) of the tools we create *are* useful outside of the OpenStack
> world - pbr, git-review, diskimage-builder, (I hope) many of the oslo
> libraries. This is really a question of defining useful interfaces more
> than anything else, not a statement of whether a tool is part of our
> community.

Only if you are willing to pay the complexity and debt cost of having
optional backends all over the place.

For instance, I think we're well beyond that point that Keystone being
optional should be a thing anywhere (and it is a thing in a number of
places). Keystone should be our auth system, all projects 100% depend on
it, and if you have different site needs, put that into a Keystone backend.

Most of the oslo libraries require other oslo libraries, which is fine.
They aren't trying to solve the general purpose case of logging or
configuration or db access. They are trying to solve a specific set of
patterns that are applicable to OpenStack projects.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net