On 11/13/2014 01:12 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
On 11 November 2014 13:30, Angus Salkeld <asalk...@mirantis.com> wrote:
Hi all

I just wanted to make sure we are all under the same understanding of the
outcomes and what the next steps for the versioned objects session are.

1. There is a lot of interest in other projects using oslo versioned objects
and it is worth progressing with this
2. jpipes and jharlow suggested experimenting/investigating google protocol
buffers (https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/) instead of  the
custom serialization and version code. This *could* be an implementation
detail, but also could make the adoption by nova more complicated (as it has
a different mechanism in place).
3. vish brought up one draw back of versioned objects: the difficulty in
cherry picking commits for stable branches - Is this a show stopper?.

Next steps:
- Jay suggested making a second spec that would lay out what it would look
like if we used google protocol buffers.
- Dan: do you need some help in making this happen, do we need some
- Are there any other concrete things we can do to get this usable by other
projects in a timely manner?

+1 on protocol buffers, but perhaps
http://kentonv.github.io/capnproto/ could be considered: its protocol
buffers v2 basically - from one of the originators of protocol
buffers. It has Python support available too, just like protocol

Very nice indeed. Been reading through the Cap'n'proto documentation and it looks like a great improvement over GPB.

Definitely something to look into.

I sent an email privately to Angus and Dan this morning saying that I personally don't have the bandwidth to do a PoC that would use GPB as implementation of the serialization, schema representation, and versioning engine. I support the idea of using GPB, but I also recognize it's a large amount of work.


OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to