Open Stack

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
> I agree with Monty here. If I were to "prioritize" the work on these
> libraries,
> I'd say parity on the operator's side of things should be the priority. The
> rest
> of the libraries could be implemented as they are needed.
>
> I don't think they all need to be implemented but I do think some of them
> should, especially because I believe the process of adding a new language
> should
> also involve building the ecosystem within the openstack community for that
> language to exist and be consumed.
>
> Wether this should be a hard requirement or not is something that we can
> talk
> more about. What I would like to avoid is a scenario were the service/team
> requesting the addition of the language doesn't use any of the common tools
> that
> exist today and we end up adding a new language and dropping all the work on
> compatibility to teams coming after. I believe this is exactly the scenario
> that
> we're in right now.

I agree with the overall concern, however I'm looking at it
(specifically the Swift Hummingbird proposal from May) as a step to
get there without biting off the entire chunk at once.  The infra
work, the community work, the packaging all is enough to handle at
once, this particular situation doesn't require oslo(-like) libraries
to gain benefit of work we need to do anyway.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com