On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 19/03/14 12:31 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> Kurt Griffiths wrote: >> >>> Kudos to Balaji for working so hard on this. I really appreciate his >>> candid feedback on both frameworks. >>> >> >> Indeed, that analysis is very much appreciated. >> >> From the Technical Committee perspective, we put a high weight on a >> factor that was not included in the report results: consistency and >> convergence between projects we commonly release in an integrated manner >> every 6 months. There was historically a lot of deviation, but as we add >> more projects that deviation is becoming more costly. We want developers >> to be able to jump from one project to another easily, and we want >> convergence from an operators perspective. >> >> Individual projects are obviously allowed to pick the best tool in their >> toolbox. But the TC may also decide to let projects live out of the >> "integrated release" if we feel they would add too much divergence in. >> > > > My only concern in this case - I'm not sure if this has been discussed > or written somewhere - is to define what the boundaries of that > divergence are. For instance, and I know this will sound quite biased, > I don't think there's anything wrong on supporting a *set* of wsgi > frameworks. To be fair, there's already a set since currently > integrated projects use webob, swob and Pecan. > Only one project is using swob, and it is unlikely that will change. The other projects are mostly using the legacy oslo framework or Pecan, although a few are using Flask (perhaps based on ceilometer's initial experimentation with it?). As I understand it, all of the integrated projects have looked at Pecan, and are anticipating the transition. Most have no reason to create a new API version, and therefore build a new API service to avoid introducing incompatibilities by rebuilding the existing API with a new tool. This aligns with the plan when Pecan was proposed as a standard. Doug > > The point I'd like to get at is that as a general rule we probably > shouldn't limit the set of supported libraries to just 1. > Cheers, > Flavio > > -- > @flaper87 > Flavio Percoco > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev