On 9/17/14, 1:46 PM, "Clint Byrum" <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote:

>Excerpts from Davanum Srinivas's message of 2014-09-17 10:15:29 -0700:
>> I was trying request-ifying oslo.vmware and ran into this as well:
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121956/
>> And we don't seem to have urllib3 in global-requirements either.
>> Should we do that first?
>Honestly, after reading this:
>I think we might want to consider requests a poor option. Its author
>clearly doesn't understand the role a _library_ plays in software
>development and considers requests an application, not a library.

Yes that is Kenneth’s opinion. That is not the opinion of the core
developers though. We see it as a library but this is something we aren’t
going to currently change any time soon.

>For instance, why is requests exposing internal implementation details
>at all?

Where exactly are we exposing internal implementation details? A normal
user (even advanced users) can use requests without ever digging into
requests.packages. What implementation details are we exposing and where?

>It should be wrapping any exceptions or objects to avoid
>forcing users to make this choice at all.

We do. Occasionally (like in 2.4.0) urllib3 adds an exception that we
missed notice of and it slips through. We released 2.4.1 a couple days
later with the fix for that. Pretty much every error we’ve seen or know
about is caught and rewrapped as a requests exception. I’m not sure what
you’re arguing here, unless of course you have not used requests.

That aside, I’ve been mulling over how effectively the clients use
requests. I haven’t investigated all of them, but many seem to reach into
implementation details on their own. If I remember nova client has
something it has commented as “connection pooling” while requests and
urllib3 do that automatically. I haven’t started to investigate exactly
why they do this. Likewise, glance client has custom certificate
verification in glanceclient.common.https. Why? I’m not exactly certain
yet. It seems for the most part from what little I’ve seen that requests
is too high-level a library for OpenStack’s needs at best, and actively
obscures details OpenStack developers need (or don’t realize requests
provides in most cases).

Circling back to the issue of vendoring though: it’s a conscious decision
to do this, and in the last two years there have been 2 CVEs reported for
requests. There have been none for urllib3 and none for chardet. (Frankly
I don’t think either urllib3 or chardet have had any CVEs reported against
them, but let’s ignore that for now.) While security is typically the
chief concern with vendoring, none of the libraries we use have had
security issues rendering it a moot point in my opinion. The benefits of
vendoring for us as a team have been numerous and we will likely continue
to do it until it stops benefiting us and our users.

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to