Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2016-10-18 12:00:35 -0600: > > > On Oct 18, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com> wrote: > > > > Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2016-10-18 09:59:54 -0600: > >> > >>> On Oct 18, 2016, at 5:14 AM, Ian Cordasco <sigmaviru...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:sigmaviru...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org > >>> <mailto:thie...@openstack.org> <mailto:thie...@openstack.org > >>> <mailto:thie...@openstack.org>>> > >>> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>> > >>> Date: October 18, 2016 at 03:55:41 > >>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> > >>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>> > >>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r > >>> > >>>> Doug Wiegley wrote: > >>>>> [...] Paths forward: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Add gunicorn to global requirements. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. Create a project specific “amphora-requirements.txt” file for the > >>>>> service VM packages (this is actually my preference.) It has been > >>>>> pointed out that this wouldn’t be kept up-to-date by the bot. We could > >>>>> modify the bot to include it in some way, or do it manually, or with a > >>>>> project specific job. > >>>>> > >>>>> 3. Split our service VM builds into another repo, to keep a clean > >>>>> separation between API services and the backend. But, even this new > >>>>> repo’s standlone requirements.txt file will have the g-r issue from #1. > >>>>> > >>>>> 4. Boot the backend out of OpenStack entirely. > >>>> > >>>> All those options sound valid to me, so the requirements team should > >>>> pick what they are the most comfortable with. > >>>> > >>>> My 2c: yes g-r is mostly about runtime dependencies and ensuring > >>>> co-installability. However it also includes test/build-time deps, and > >>>> generally converging dependencies overall sounds like a valid goal. Is > >>>> there any drawback in adding gunicorn to g-r (option 1) ? > >>> > >>> The drawback (in my mind) is that new projects might start using it > >>> giving operators yet another thing to learn about when deploying a new > >>> component (eventlet, gevent, gunicorn, ...). > >>> > >>> On the flip, what's the benefit of adding it to g-r? > >> > >> The positive benefit is the same as Octavia’s use case: it provides an > >> alternative for any non-frontline-api service to run a lightweight > >> http/wsgi service as needed (service VMs, health monitor agents, etc). And > >> something better than the built-in debug servers in most of the frameworks. > >> > >> On the proliferation point, it is certainly a risk, though I’ve personally > >> heard pretty strong guidance that all main API services in our community > >> should be trending towards pecan. > > > > Pecan is a way to build WSGI applications. Gunicorn is a way to deploy > > them. So they're not mutually exclusive. > > Right, agreed. > > What we’re trying to convey here is: > > - The normal way of making a REST endpoint in OpenStack is to use pecan (or > flask or falcon), and let the deployer or packager worry about the runtime > wsgi and/or reverse proxy. > > - This isn't a “normal” OpenStack endpoint, because it’s a microservice > inside a service VM, and thus has different needs, and is much less likely to > be customized by a non-dev, to boot. And it needs to be “deploy ready” as a > simple matter of it being a service VM black box. It’s part of the data > plane, not the control plane. > > Thanks, > doug
That all seems reasonable. We have a proliferation of these service VMs. It would be good to get some of the folks involved together to start a working group to see if there are some commonalities that can lead to shared processes or tools. Doug > > > > > Doug > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> doug > >> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Ian Cordasco > >>> > >>> > >>> __________________________________________________________________________ > >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > >>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org> > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org > >>> <mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org>>?subject:unsubscribe > >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> > >>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >>> <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 > > <mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > <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
