Open Stack

On 04/03/2012 11:16 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> 4) nova.exception
>>
>> nova.rpc defines two exceptions based on NovaException.  They could be
>> based on OpenstackException from openstack-common, instead.  There's
>> also an RPC exception defined in nova.exception, but that can be moved
>> into nova.rpc with the others.
>
> Is there any great value to having a base Exception class?
>
> e.g. a cfg exception and an rpc exception are completely unrelated, so
> I'd just have those modules define unrelated exceptions
>
>> The code also uses wrap_exception.  The one in openstack-common seems
>> sufficient for how it's used.
>>
>> However, I'm not sure how people would feel about having both
>> openstack.common.exception and nova.exception in the tree since they
>> overlap quite a bit.  I like being able to do work in pieces, but having
>> them both in the tree leaves the code in an odd state, so we need some
>> end goal in mind.
>
> I'm not a huge fan of openstack.common.exception

Yeah, I don't see too much value in having everything inherit from a 
common exception base class. I think the different projects will 
typically want to customize the error message text...

>> 5) nova.context
>>
>> I haven't looked at this one in detail, yet.  We'll have to sort out
>> what to do with RequestContext.  I see in the message from Swaminathan
>> Venkataraman that both openstack-common and nova have RequestContext,
>> but there's more code in the nova version.  I suppose we should look at
>> making the openstack-common version sufficient for nova and then switch
>> nova to it.

Glance also has a different RequestContext:

https://github.com/openstack/glance/blob/master/glance/common/context.py

I wouldn't mind if the Glance-specific RequestContext inherited from a 
base openstack-common one, though, and just added its stuff related to 
Glance's owner_is_tenant config option....

Best,
-jay