On Nov 3, 2013, at 6:54 AM, Jay Pipes <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/02/2013 11:26 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: >> On 11/02/2013 11:54 AM, Adrian Otto wrote: >>> Noorul, >>> >>> I agree that key decisions should be tracked in blueprints. This is the >>> one for this decision which was made in our 2013-10-18 public meeting. >>> Jay's submission is consistent with the direction indicated by the team. >>> >>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/solum/+spec/rest-api-base >>> >>> Transcript log: >>> http://irclogs.solum.io/2013/solum.2013-10-08-16.01.log.html >>> <http://irclogs.solum.io/2013/solum.2013-10-08-16.01.log.html> >> >> Heh, not much discussion there. :-) > > Agreed. I actually didn't know anything about the discussion -- I wasn't at > the meeting. I just figured I would throw some example code up to Gerrit that > shows how Falcon can be used for the API plumbing. Like I mentioned in a > previous email, I believe it's much easier to discuss things when there is > sample code... > >> Here's my take ... Pecan+WSME has been pushed as the thing to >> standardize on across most OpenStack APIs. Ceilometer (and maybe >> others?) are already using it. Others, such as Nova, are planning to >> use it this cycle. [1][2] > > I've used both actually, and I've come to prefer Falcon because of its > simplicity and specifically because of the following things: > > * It's lack of integration with WSME, which I don't care for. I don't care > for WSME because I believe it tries to put the model at the view layer, > instead of where it belongs, at the model layer. > * It doesn't need a configuration file, specifically a configuration file > that is a Python file as opposed to an .ini file. > >> I care less about the particular choice and more about consistency. It >> brings a lot of value, such as making it a lot easier for developers to >> jump around between the OpenStack projects. Can we first at least agree >> that there is value in standardizing on *something* for most OpenStack APIs? > > I completely understand the need for consistency. I pushed my patch as an > example of how to do things the Falcon way. While I would prefer Falcon over > Pecan (and certainly over Pecan+WSME), I will respect the push towards > consistency if that's what is most important. > > That said, I also believe that the projects in Stackforge should be the > "laboratories of experiment", and these projects may serve as a good > playground for various implementations of things. I remind the reader that > over time, the development community has standardized on various things, only > to find a better implementation in an incubated project. Pecan+WSME is > actually an example of that experimentation turned accepted standard. > > Best, > -jay > >> I understand that there may be cases where the needs for an API justify >> being different. Marconi being more of a data-plane API vs >> control-plane means that performance concerns are much higher, for example. >> >> If we agree that consistency is good, does Solum have needs that make it >> different than the majority of OpenStack APIs? IMO, it does not. >> >> Can someone lay out a case for why all OpenStack projects should be >> using Falcon, if that's what you think Solum should use? >> >> Also, is anyone willing to put up the equivalent of Jay's review [3], >> but with Pecan+WSME, to help facilitate the discussion? >> >> [1] >> http://icehousedesignsummit.sched.org/event/b2680d411aa7f5d432438a435ac21fee >> [2] >> http://icehousedesignsummit.sched.org/event/4a7316a4f5c6f783e362cbba2644bae2 >> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/55040/ >>
I added this subject to our next meeting agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Solum Adrian _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
