> One of the pain points for me as an action developer is the OpenStack actions[1]. Since they all use the same method name to retrieve the underlying client, you cannot simply inherit from more than one so you are forced to rewrite the client access methods. We saw this in creating actions for TripleO[2]. In the base action in TripleO, we have actions that make calls to more than one OpenStack client and so we end up re-writing and maintaining code. IMO the idea of using multiple inheritance there would be helpful. It may not require the mixin approach here, but rather a design change in the generator to ensure the method names don't match. > > [1] https://github.com/openstack/mistral/blob/master/mistral/actions/openstack/actions.py <https://github.com/openstack/mistral/blob/master/mistral/actions/openstack/actions.py> > [2] https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-common/blob/master/tripleo_common/actions/base.py#L27 <https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-common/blob/master/tripleo_common/actions/base.py#L27> I think I’m ok with multiple inheritance if we have a good reason. The question is: do we need to have some multiple inheritance in base classes? What you’re saying about OpenStack actions just looks like a slightly different discussion because they’ve never meant to be base classes, they were not designed with this goal in mind. Now, when we’re refactoring the whole subsystem and also OpenStack actions we need to revisit their design and think how to make it more flexible. My suggestion here is to move iteratively. I am personally not going to be too opinionated about different ideas you’re suggesting. I’d rather merge the one that seems the best then reevaluate, change it etc. While mistral-lib is considered experimental we can try different options. Renat Akhmerov @Nokia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20170313/df28a9f2/attachment.html>