On 15/01/14 18:11 +0800, Fei Long Wang wrote:
I'm echoing markwash's concern. At least for Glance, I didn't see a strong justification or function gap to push us switching to Pecan. So I prefer to implement it in next major version and pending it in Glance v2.Thanks & Best regards, Fei Long Wang (王飞龙) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Tech Lead of Nitrogen (SME team) Cloud Solutions and OpenStack Development Tel: 8610-82450513 | T/L: 905-0513 Email: [email protected] China Systems & Technology Laboratory in Beijing --------------------------------------------------------------------- Inactive hide details for Mark Washenberger ---01/15/2014 08:16:39 AM---This time, with content! On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:51 AMark Washenberger ---01/15/ 2014 08:16:39 AM---This time, with content! On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Flavio Percoco <[email protected]> wrote: From: Mark Washenberger <[email protected]> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <[email protected]>, Date: 01/15/2014 08:16 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][All] Pecan migration strategies ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ This time, with content! On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Flavio Percoco <[email protected]> wrote: Greetings, More discussions around the adoption of Pecan. I'd like to know what is the feeling of other folks about migrating existing APIs to Pecan as opposed to waiting for a new API version as an excuse to migrate the API implementation to Pecan? We discussed this in one of the sessions at the summit, I'd like to get a final consensus on what the desired migration path is for the overall community. IIRC, Cinder has a working version of the API with Pecan but there's not a real motivation to release a new version of it that will use the new implementation. Am I right? Nova, instead, will start migrating some parts but not all of them and it'll happen as part of the API v3. AFAIU. Recently a new patch was proposed in glance[0] and it contains a base implementation for the existing API v2. I love that patch and the fact that Oleh Anufriiev is working on it. What worries me, is that the patch re-implements an existing API and I don't think we should just swap them. Yes, I'm a bit worried about just swapping in a new implementation, too, much as I think the approach using Pecan is superior to the way we initially went. At this time I don't see a really compelling reason to switch. It would be neat however if there are any people who actually want to run the Pecan implementation of the v2 API--if so it might be worth taking it on into upstream. But unless we actually think there is some future development in v2.0 that will be substantially eased by using Pecan I think we should probably not switch implementations until there is a major version bump.
Agreed. This is my exact concern and opinion at this moment. Cheers, FF
Yes, we have tests (unit and functional) and that should be enough to make sure the new implementation works as the old one - Should it? Should it? - but... This most likely has to be evaluated in a per-project basis. But: - What are the thoughts of other folks on this matter? Cheers, FF [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62911/ -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
pgpVWIXbaMD5N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
