24 instances as shown by codesearch: http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=%5E(wsme%7CWSME)&i=nope&files=%5E.*requirements.txt&repos=
-- Dims On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Which projects in OpenStack actually use WSME at this time? > > Best, > -jay > > On 03/08/2016 07:10 AM, Chris Dent wrote: >> >> On Tue, 8 Mar 2016, Stéphane Bisinger wrote: >>> >>> Is there an estimate of how much work/time it would take to refactor the >>> library to slowly satisfy those three points? >> >> >> No, that is the biggest reason I'm calling it unmaintained. Neither >> Lucas nor I have the time nor interest in being the people who fix WSME >> so no estimating has been done. >> >>> Also, do we already have clear ideas on where we want to get? While the >>> three points are clear from a general point of view, what does each of >>> those points really mean? Which parts have you identified as "not easy to >>> understand", what architecture you have in mind when speaking about >>> "modern >>> Python-based web applications"? IIRC you suggested Pecan as a reference. >> >> >> I may have mentioned Pecan as a useful way to transition away from >> WSME because many people who are using WSME are actually using >> WSME+Pecan and its not that hard to extract the WSME parts and >> replace the input and output handling with voluptuous or something >> like that. >> >> However I don't like Pecan myself because it models URL routing using >> object-dispatch which I think is very bad for URL design. When we've >> talked about this before Flask and Falcon were mooted. Flask >> generally gets the nod because of its community but it requires a >> commitment to doing things the "Flask way". >> >>> IMHO, if we are trying to fix it, the first step should be to have a >>> clear >>> plan as to encourage volunteer contributions, even thou there are not >>> many >>> of those. >> >> >> That is pretty much the main question: Does OpenStack want to fix >> it? >> >>> That's my 2 cents! >> >> >> Thank you! >> >>> (*) I remember that a change I did to correct an HTTP status code >>> returned >>> from WSME had an impact in the OpenStack projects using it. So before >>> releasing a version with the correct status codes we have to remember to >>> tell others to check their code to ensure it works with the correct >>> status >>> codes. >> >> >> Exactly. Projects that use OpenStack have habituated themselves to >> some of the bad behaviors in WSME (I think at one point it was >> returning 404 when it should have been 405) and written tests to >> validate the bad behavior. Upgrading to a new WSME breaks their >> tests. >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 -- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims __________________________________________________________________________ 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