Michael, we already solved all issues I described, and I just don't want to solve them once again after moving to another framework. Also, I think, nothing of these wishes contradicts with good API design.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Michael Krotscheck <krotsch...@gmail.com> wrote: > This sounds more like you need to pay off technical debt and clean up your > API. > > Michael > > On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 10:58:43 AM Nikolay Markov <nmar...@mirantis.com> > wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> I actually tried to use Pecan and even created a couple of PoCs, but >> there due to historical reasons of how our API is organized it will >> take much more time to implement all workarounds we need to issues >> Pecan doesn't solve out of the box, like working with non-RESTful >> URLs, reverse URL lookup, returning custom body in 404 response, >> wrapping errors to JSON automatically, etc. >> >> As far as I see, each OpenStack project implements its own workarounds >> for these issues, but still it requires much less men and hours for us >> to move to Flask-Restful instead of Pecan, because all these problems >> are already solved there. >> >> BTW, I know a lot of pretty big projects using Flask (it's the second >> most popular Web framework after Django in Python Web community), they >> even have their own "hall of fame": >> http://flask.pocoo.org/community/poweredby/ . >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Ryan Brown <rybr...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On 12/02/2014 09:55 AM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: >> >> Hi, Sebastian, >> >> >> >> Thank you for raising this topic again. >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> Personally, I'd like to use Flask instead of Pecan, because first one >> >> is more production-ready tool and I like its design. But I believe >> >> this should be resolved by voting. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Igor >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski >> >> <skalinow...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >> >>> >> >>> [snip explanation+history] >> >>> >> >>> Best, >> >>> Sebastian >> > >> > Given that Pecan is used for other OpenStack projects and has plenty of >> > builtin functionality (REST support, sessions, etc) I'd prefer it for a >> > number of reasons. >> > >> > 1) Wouldn't have to pull in plugins for standard (in Pecan) things >> > 2) Pecan is built for high traffic, where Flask is aimed at much smaller >> > projects >> > 3) Already used by other OpenStack projects, so common patterns can be >> > reused as oslo libs >> > >> > Of course, the Flask community seems larger (though the average flask >> > project seems pretty small). >> > >> > I'm not sure what determines "production readiness", but it seems to me >> > like Fuel developers fall more in Pecan's target audience than in >> > Flask's. >> > >> > My $0.02, >> > Ryan >> > >> > -- >> > Ryan Brown / Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > OpenStack-dev mailing list >> > OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Nick Markov >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStackemail@example.com >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Best regards, Nick Markov _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev