Hi Madhuri, Amazing work! I wouldn't concern the code duplication and modularity issue since the codes are generated. However, there is another concern here: if we find a bug/improvement of the generated code, we probably need to modify the generator. The question is if the upstream will accept the modifications? If yes, how fast the patch will go through.
I would prefer to maintain a folk of the generator. By this way, we would have full control of the generated code. Thoughts? Thanks, Hongbin On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > From: Madhuri Rai <madhuri.ra...@gmail.com> > Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > firstname.lastname@example.org> > Date: Monday, March 23, 2015 at 1:53 AM > To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org > > > Subject: [openstack-dev] [magnum] swagger-codegen generated code for > python-k8sclient > > Hi All, > > This is to have a discussion on the blueprint for implementing > python-k8client for magnum. > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/python-k8sclient > > I have committed the code generated by swagger-codegen at > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/166720/. > But I feel the quality of the code generated by swagger-codegen is not > good. > > Some of the points: > 1) There is lot of code duplication. If we want to generate code for two > or more versions, same code is duplicated for each API version. > 2) There is no modularity. CLI code for all the APIs are written in same > file. > > So, I would like your opinion on this. How should we proceed further? > > > Madhuri, > > First off, spectacular that you figured out how to do this! Great great > job! I suspected the swagger code would be a bunch of garbage. Just > looking over the review, the output isn’t too terribly bad. It has some > serious pep8 problems. > > Now that we have seen the swagger code generator works, we need to see > if it produces useable output. In other words, can the API be used by the > magnum backend. Google is “all-in” on swagger for their API model. > Realistically maintaining a python binding would be a huge job. If we > could just use swagger for the short term, even though its less then ideal, > that would be my preference. Even if its suboptimal. We can put a readme > in the TLD saying the code was generated by a a code generator and explain > how to generate the API. > > One last question. I didn’t see immediately by looking at the api, but > does it support TLS auth? We will need that. > > Super impressed! > > Regards > -steve > > > > Regards, > Madhuri Kumari > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev