I created a little comparison table on major issues: https://docs.google.com/a/mirantis.com/document/d/1QR7YphyfN64m-e9b5rKC_U8bMtx4zjfW943BfLTqTao/edit?usp=sharing , feel free to comment.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Nikolay Markov <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, but it took almost a week for me to rewrite current API to it, and > there are still a lot of gaps even then tests are mostly passed. > > For example, URL "/api/clusters/1/network_configuration/" works properly, > but also the same handler (by Pecan design) should work with URL > "/api/clusters/network_configuration/", and of course it fails with HTTP > 500, because cluster_id is not passed (it is a required argument). I know > it's simple to add another check for that, but I don't know why Pecan even > allow cases like this and has no correct built-in routing mechanism. > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Mike Scherbakov <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Also, is it your POC using Pecan? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99069/ >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Mike Scherbakov < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Nick, >>> if you've got a time for it - I would love to see more formal approach >>> to the analysis. We know our requirements for Fuel already (we do, >>> right?)), so I believe we could have a comparison table, with features we >>> need in rows and frameworks in columns. >>> You mentioned some of the features already, such as PATCH, >>> application/json type without monkey-patching, etc. >>> >>> If we follow this way and collaboratively feel up such a table, there >>> will be no question what to take when it comes to finally choose framework >>> and start development. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Tomasz Napierala < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 20 Aug 2014, at 18:14, Nikolay Markov <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Lukasz, >>>> > >>>> > I did try this configuration and it was hell. I shared my experience >>>> in previous letters in this thread. Please don't hesitate to share your >>>> experience If you have some other thoughts. >>>> > >>>> > The thing is, we won't really have much time after 5.1 and before >>>> 6.0, so all big-size decisions should be done as early as possible. >>>> >>>> I agree that it might be too late after release. So maybe we should >>>> wait until after HCF - most people will have some spare time to do research >>>> / familiarize themselves with various frameworks. What do you think about >>>> it? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -- >>>> Tomasz Napierala >>>> Sr. OpenStack Engineer >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >>>> Post to : [email protected] >>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mike Scherbakov >>> #mihgen >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mike Scherbakov >> #mihgen >> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Nick Markov > -- Best regards, Nick Markov
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
