Open Stack

On 09/04/2018 12:59 PM, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 09/04/2018 12:17 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2018-09-04 12:08:41 -0400:
>>>> On 09/04/2018 11:44 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>>> Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2018-09-04 15:32:12 +0100:
>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a reason we couldn't have openstack-placement be the 
>>>>>>> package name?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would hope we'd be able to do that, and probably should do that.
>>>>>> 'openstack-placement' seems a find pypi package name for a think
>>>>>> from which you do 'import placement' to do some openstack stuff,
>>>>>> yeah?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's still a pretty generic name for the top-level import, but I 
>>>>> think
>>>>> the only real risk is that the placement service couldn't be installed
>>>>> at the same time as another package owned by someone else that used 
>>>>> that
>>>>> top-level name. I'm not sure how much of a risk that really is.
>>>>
>>>> You mean if there was another Python package that used the package name
>>>> "placement"?
>>>>
>>>> The alternative would be to make the top-level package something like
>>>> os_placement instead?
>>
>> Either one works for me. Though I'm pretty sure that it isn't 
>> necessary. The reason it isn't necessary is because the stuff in the 
>> top-level placement package isn't meant to be imported by anything at 
>> all. It's the placement server code.
> 
> What about placement direct and the effort to allow cinder to import 
> placement instead of running it as a separate service?

I don't know what placement direct is. Placement wasn't designed to be 
imported as a module. It was designed to be a (micro-)service with a 
REST API for interfacing.

Best,
-jay