Open Stack

> On Oct 18, 2016, at 5:14 AM, Ian Cordasco <sigmavirus24 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>>
> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> Date: October 18, 2016 at 03:55:41
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r
> 
>> Doug Wiegley wrote:
>>> [...] Paths forward:
>>> 
>>> 1. Add gunicorn to global requirements.
>>> 
>>> 2. Create a project specific “amphora-requirements.txt” file for the
>>> service VM packages (this is actually my preference.) It has been
>>> pointed out that this wouldn’t be kept up-to-date by the bot. We could
>>> modify the bot to include it in some way, or do it manually, or with a
>>> project specific job.
>>> 
>>> 3. Split our service VM builds into another repo, to keep a clean
>>> separation between API services and the backend. But, even this new
>>> repo’s standlone requirements.txt file will have the g-r issue from #1.
>>> 
>>> 4. Boot the backend out of OpenStack entirely.
>> 
>> All those options sound valid to me, so the requirements team should
>> pick what they are the most comfortable with.
>> 
>> My 2c: yes g-r is mostly about runtime dependencies and ensuring
>> co-installability. However it also includes test/build-time deps, and
>> generally converging dependencies overall sounds like a valid goal. Is
>> there any drawback in adding gunicorn to g-r (option 1) ?
> 
> The drawback (in my mind) is that new projects might start using it giving operators yet another thing to learn about when deploying a new component (eventlet, gevent, gunicorn, ...).
> 
> On the flip, what's the benefit of adding it to g-r?

The positive benefit is the same as Octavia’s use case: it provides an alternative for any non-frontline-api service to run a lightweight http/wsgi service as needed (service VMs, health monitor agents, etc). And something better than the built-in debug servers in most of the frameworks.

On the proliferation point, it is certainly a risk, though I’ve personally heard pretty strong guidance that all main API services in our community should be trending towards pecan.

Thanks,
doug

> 
> --  
> Ian Cordasco
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20161018/76e73454/attachment.html>