Some comments inline,


On 21 May 2014 15:23, Mandeep Dhami <> wrote:

> Hi Sean:
> While the APIs might not be changing*, I suspect that there are
> significant design decisions being made**. These changes are probably more
> significant than any new feature being discussed. As a community, are we
> expected to document these design changes and review these changes as well?
> I am still trying to figure out what Neutron's review standards are. On one
> hand, I am seeing code review comments that reject a patch for cosmetic
> changes (like a name change from what was in the reviewed blueprint), to
> having an attitude that something as core and central to neutron as
> refactoring and a major API update to v3 not needing a design
> document/review.

This is a bit obscure to me. I read it as you're hinting the core team or
part of it has double standards.
In that case I would invite you to clarify.

> It is my opinion, and my recommendation, that the proposed changes be
> documented and reviewed by same standard that we have for other features.

As for any other change requiring a blueprint, they will obviously be
submitted to neutron-specs and reviewed; as long as they're not there, they
do not exist.

> * I believe that v3 API is being introduced and chnages are being made,
> but I might have mis-understood.

I am not entirely sure what kind of v3 APIs you're referring to.
I think no changes to existing subnet/router/floating IPs APIs and object
models have been proposed so far.
Anyway, I was not at the summit either, so my information might not be

** I was under the impression that in addition to the Pecan updates, there
> was going to be refactoring to use taskflow as well. And that I expect to
> have significant control flow impact, and that is what I really wanted to
> review.

I don't see a mandatory relationship between pecan and taskflow.
There was a session discussing the possibility of having a task based
interaction between the front end and the backend - taskflow would be a
candidate task manager solution there. But from what I gathered this was
orthogonal to the Pecan effort, which is merely a replacement of the
home-grown wsgi framework neutron is running today.

> Regards,
> mandeep
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Collins, Sean <
>> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 05:18:57PM EDT, Mandeep Dhami wrote:
>> > Renewing the thread, is there a blueprint for this refactoring effort?
>> >
>> > In the email thread till now, we have just had an etherpad link. I would
>> > like to get more deeply involved in design/implementation and review of
>> > these changes and I get a feeling that not being able to attend the
>> Atlanta
>> > summit is going to be a significant barrier to participation in this
>> > critical effort.
>> It is possible there is a misconception here: refactoring the API core
>> does
>> not mean changing the APIs that are presented to the user. We are in the
>> process of replacing a homegrown WSGI with Pecan to make the WSGI layer
>> of Neutron cleaner and easier to create API extensions.
>> --
>> Sean M. Collins
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to