[openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"
greg at greghaynes.net
Mon May 23 20:59:23 UTC 2016
On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 02:57 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> 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
Services and Projects seem to be getting conflated here. IIUC Your two
points apply only to services - we certainly aren't paying any
complexity costs for making pbr optional and the same could be said for
many of our tools.
I don't have a ton of context for why some services are electing to pay
the cost of making Keystone optional. The point I was hoping to make is
that there is value in defining an interface which is useful outside of
OpenStack, and this is a very common pattern with many of our tools. I
completely agree that there are additional costs to doing so at times,
and obviously they have to be weighed against the benefits. That is
really a problem-specific issue, though.
> 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.
This is true up to a point - there isn't any inherent value in
overfitting a problem to be OpenStack specific. To beat on the pbr
hammer some more - we created a tool that fulfills our needs and making
it in a way where others can use it didn't cost us anything. This isn't
always the case but sometimes it is, and there is absolutely value in
making a tool which others can use.
> Sean Dague
More information about the OpenStack-dev