On 19/03/14 11:20 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Flavio Percoco <[email protected]> wrote: 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.
Yeah, what I wanted to say is that it is arguable that we should add another framework (falcon) to this already existing set of frameworks. Although, it is being reduced to just 2 which still raises my previous question:
The point I'd like to get at is that as a general rule we probablyshouldn't limit the set of supported libraries to just 1.
... but perhaps decide in a per-case basis. Cheers, Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
pgpXcar_3te57.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
