Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][All] Pecan migration strategies
Hi. Implementing API on Pecan is a subthread of unification of openstack components activity. In this context we have to do the job in any case. I totally agree with cases Roman Prykhodchenko described. If we swap versions now we'll have this part of work done. At that moment, when we'll need new API versions we'll have to implement just controllers, not whole WSGI application. In addition, when v3 will be provided and v1 deleted whole API service will work on Pecan. It is still a question if v3 ever been required... So, seems wrong to delay unification until v3. Finally, it will be difficult to implement v3 and migrate v2 to Pecan same time. Regards. Oleh Anufriiev. This time, with content! On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > Greetings, > > More discussions around the adoption of Pecan. > > I'd like to know what is the feeling of other folks about migrating > existing APIs to Pecan as opposed to waiting for a new API version as > an excuse to migrate the API implementation to Pecan? > > We discussed this in one of the sessions at the summit, I'd like to > get a final consensus on what the desired migration path is for the > overall community. > > IIRC, Cinder has a working version of the API with Pecan but there's > not a real motivation to release a new version of it that will use > the new implementation. Am I right? > > Nova, instead, will start migrating some parts but not all of them and > it'll happen as part of the API v3. AFAIU. > > Recently a new patch was proposed in glance[0] and it contains a base > implementation for the existing API v2. I love that patch and the fact > that Oleh Anufriiev is working on it. What worries me, is that the > patch re-implements an existing API and I don't think we should just > swap them. > Yes, I'm a bit worried about just swapping in a new implementation, too, much as I think the approach using Pecan is superior to the way we initially went. At this time I don't see a really compelling reason to switch. It would be neat however if there are any people who actually want to run the Pecan implementation of the v2 API--if so it might be worth taking it on into upstream. But unless we actually think there is some future development in v2.0 that will be substantially eased by using Pecan I think we should probably not switch implementations until there is a major version bump. > > Yes, we have tests (unit and functional) and that should be enough to > make sure the new implementation works as the old one - Should it? > Should it? - but... > > This most likely has to be evaluated in a per-project basis. But: > >- What are the thoughts of other folks on this matter? > > Cheers, > FF > > [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62911/ > > -- > @flaper87 > Flavio Percoco > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][All] Pecan migration strategies
On 15/01/14 18:11 +0800, Fei Long Wang wrote: I'm echoing markwash's concern. At least for Glance, I didn't see a strong justification or function gap to push us switching to Pecan. So I prefer to implement it in next major version and pending it in Glance v2. Thanks & Best regards, Fei Long Wang (王飞龙) - Tech Lead of Nitrogen (SME team) Cloud Solutions and OpenStack Development Tel: 8610-82450513 | T/L: 905-0513 Email: flw...@cn.ibm.com China Systems & Technology Laboratory in Beijing - Inactive hide details for Mark Washenberger ---01/15/2014 08:16:39 AM---This time, with content! On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:51 AMark Washenberger ---01/15/ 2014 08:16:39 AM---This time, with content! On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: From: Mark Washenberger To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" , Date: 01/15/2014 08:16 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][All] Pecan migration strategies ━━━ This time, with content! On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: Greetings, More discussions around the adoption of Pecan. I'd like to know what is the feeling of other folks about migrating existing APIs to Pecan as opposed to waiting for a new API version as an excuse to migrate the API implementation to Pecan? We discussed this in one of the sessions at the summit, I'd like to get a final consensus on what the desired migration path is for the overall community. IIRC, Cinder has a working version of the API with Pecan but there's not a real motivation to release a new version of it that will use the new implementation. Am I right? Nova, instead, will start migrating some parts but not all of them and it'll happen as part of the API v3. AFAIU. Recently a new patch was proposed in glance[0] and it contains a base implementation for the existing API v2. I love that patch and the fact that Oleh Anufriiev is working on it. What worries me, is that the patch re-implements an existing API and I don't think we should just swap them. Yes, I'm a bit worried about just swapping in a new implementation, too, much as I think the approach using Pecan is superior to the way we initially went. At this time I don't see a really compelling reason to switch. It would be neat however if there are any people who actually want to run the Pecan implementation of the v2 API--if so it might be worth taking it on into upstream. But unless we actually think there is some future development in v2.0 that will be substantially eased by using Pecan I think we should probably not switch implementations until there is a major version bump. Agreed. This is my exact concern and opinion at this moment. Cheers, FF Yes, we have tests (unit and functional) and that should be enough to make sure the new implementation works as the old one - Should it? Should it? - but... This most likely has to be evaluated in a per-project basis. But: - What are the thoughts of other folks on this matter? Cheers, FF [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62911/ -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco pgpVWIXbaMD5N.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][All] Pecan migration strategies
I'm echoing markwash's concern. At least for Glance, I didn't see a strong justification or function gap to push us switching to Pecan. So I prefer to implement it in next major version and pending it in Glance v2. Thanks & Best regards, Fei Long Wang (王飞龙) - Tech Lead of Nitrogen (SME team) Cloud Solutions and OpenStack Development Tel: 8610-82450513 | T/L: 905-0513 Email: flw...@cn.ibm.com China Systems & Technology Laboratory in Beijing - From: Mark Washenberger To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" , Date: 01/15/2014 08:16 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][All] Pecan migration strategies This time, with content! On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: Greetings, More discussions around the adoption of Pecan. I'd like to know what is the feeling of other folks about migrating existing APIs to Pecan as opposed to waiting for a new API version as an excuse to migrate the API implementation to Pecan? We discussed this in one of the sessions at the summit, I'd like to get a final consensus on what the desired migration path is for the overall community. IIRC, Cinder has a working version of the API with Pecan but there's not a real motivation to release a new version of it that will use the new implementation. Am I right? Nova, instead, will start migrating some parts but not all of them and it'll happen as part of the API v3. AFAIU. Recently a new patch was proposed in glance[0] and it contains a base implementation for the existing API v2. I love that patch and the fact that Oleh Anufriiev is working on it. What worries me, is that the patch re-implements an existing API and I don't think we should just swap them. Yes, I'm a bit worried about just swapping in a new implementation, too, much as I think the approach using Pecan is superior to the way we initially went. At this time I don't see a really compelling reason to switch. It would be neat however if there are any people who actually want to run the Pecan implementation of the v2 API--if so it might be worth taking it on into upstream. But unless we actually think there is some future development in v2.0 that will be substantially eased by using Pecan I think we should probably not switch implementations until there is a major version bump. Yes, we have tests (unit and functional) and that should be enough to make sure the new implementation works as the old one - Should it? Should it? - but... This most likely has to be evaluated in a per-project basis. But: - What are the thoughts of other folks on this matter? Cheers, FF [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62911/ -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev <>___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][All] Pecan migration strategies
This time, with content! On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > Greetings, > > More discussions around the adoption of Pecan. > > I'd like to know what is the feeling of other folks about migrating > existing APIs to Pecan as opposed to waiting for a new API version as > an excuse to migrate the API implementation to Pecan? > > We discussed this in one of the sessions at the summit, I'd like to > get a final consensus on what the desired migration path is for the > overall community. > > IIRC, Cinder has a working version of the API with Pecan but there's > not a real motivation to release a new version of it that will use > the new implementation. Am I right? > > Nova, instead, will start migrating some parts but not all of them and > it'll happen as part of the API v3. AFAIU. > > Recently a new patch was proposed in glance[0] and it contains a base > implementation for the existing API v2. I love that patch and the fact > that Oleh Anufriiev is working on it. What worries me, is that the > patch re-implements an existing API and I don't think we should just > swap them. > Yes, I'm a bit worried about just swapping in a new implementation, too, much as I think the approach using Pecan is superior to the way we initially went. At this time I don't see a really compelling reason to switch. It would be neat however if there are any people who actually want to run the Pecan implementation of the v2 API--if so it might be worth taking it on into upstream. But unless we actually think there is some future development in v2.0 that will be substantially eased by using Pecan I think we should probably not switch implementations until there is a major version bump. > > Yes, we have tests (unit and functional) and that should be enough to > make sure the new implementation works as the old one - Should it? > Should it? - but... > > This most likely has to be evaluated in a per-project basis. But: > >- What are the thoughts of other folks on this matter? > > Cheers, > FF > > [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62911/ > > -- > @flaper87 > Flavio Percoco > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][All] Pecan migration strategies
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:51 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > Greetings, > > More discussions around the adoption of Pecan. > > I'd like to know what is the feeling of other folks about migrating > existing APIs to Pecan as opposed to waiting for a new API version as > an excuse to migrate the API implementation to Pecan? > > We discussed this in one of the sessions at the summit, I'd like to > get a final consensus on what the desired migration path is for the > overall community. > > IIRC, Cinder has a working version of the API with Pecan but there's > not a real motivation to release a new version of it that will use > the new implementation. Am I right? > > Nova, instead, will start migrating some parts but not all of them and > it'll happen as part of the API v3. AFAIU. > > Recently a new patch was proposed in glance[0] and it contains a base > implementation for the existing API v2. I love that patch and the fact > that Oleh Anufriiev is working on it. What worries me, is that the > patch re-implements an existing API and I don't think we should just > swap them. > > Yes, we have tests (unit and functional) and that should be enough to > make sure the new implementation works as the old one - Should it? > Should it? - but... > > This most likely has to be evaluated in a per-project basis. But: > >- What are the thoughts of other folks on this matter? > > Cheers, > FF > > [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62911/ > > -- > @flaper87 > Flavio Percoco > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance][All] Pecan migration strategies
Hi folks, I would vote for implementing the existing version, i.e, 2.0 instead of creating a new one. The reasons I consider are the following: 1. Introducing a new version of the API means making some changes to the specification. In the case of changing the major version those changes should be major. In our case we are going to change not specification but implementation. So for users there will be two absolutely identical interfaces for a single black box. 2. Creating a new version means that the old one will be kept for some time. That also means that getting rid of the old code which just duplicates some functions will be harder or even not possible. 3. There are some users of the Glance API. It will take significant time until they all switch to the new version. That means we will have to support the old one until the last user switched from it. To make it possible to switch to the new Pecan-based API we need to guarantee that the old version and the new one are identical. While it's not possible to guarantee 100% match, it would be sufficient to check whether everything that uses the old version works with the new one. Then switching to the new version should be as painless as possible. Regards, Roman Prykhodchenko On Jan 10, 2014, at 14:51 , Flavio Percoco wrote: > Greetings, > > More discussions around the adoption of Pecan. > > I'd like to know what is the feeling of other folks about migrating > existing APIs to Pecan as opposed to waiting for a new API version as > an excuse to migrate the API implementation to Pecan? > > We discussed this in one of the sessions at the summit, I'd like to > get a final consensus on what the desired migration path is for the > overall community. > > IIRC, Cinder has a working version of the API with Pecan but there's > not a real motivation to release a new version of it that will use > the new implementation. Am I right? > > Nova, instead, will start migrating some parts but not all of them and > it'll happen as part of the API v3. AFAIU. > > Recently a new patch was proposed in glance[0] and it contains a base > implementation for the existing API v2. I love that patch and the fact > that Oleh Anufriiev is working on it. What worries me, is that the > patch re-implements an existing API and I don't think we should just > swap them. > > Yes, we have tests (unit and functional) and that should be enough to > make sure the new implementation works as the old one - Should it? > Should it? - but... > > This most likely has to be evaluated in a per-project basis. But: > > - What are the thoughts of other folks on this matter? > > Cheers, > FF > > [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62911/ > > -- > @flaper87 > Flavio Percoco > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Glance][All] Pecan migration strategies
Greetings, More discussions around the adoption of Pecan. I'd like to know what is the feeling of other folks about migrating existing APIs to Pecan as opposed to waiting for a new API version as an excuse to migrate the API implementation to Pecan? We discussed this in one of the sessions at the summit, I'd like to get a final consensus on what the desired migration path is for the overall community. IIRC, Cinder has a working version of the API with Pecan but there's not a real motivation to release a new version of it that will use the new implementation. Am I right? Nova, instead, will start migrating some parts but not all of them and it'll happen as part of the API v3. AFAIU. Recently a new patch was proposed in glance[0] and it contains a base implementation for the existing API v2. I love that patch and the fact that Oleh Anufriiev is working on it. What worries me, is that the patch re-implements an existing API and I don't think we should just swap them. Yes, we have tests (unit and functional) and that should be enough to make sure the new implementation works as the old one - Should it? Should it? - but... This most likely has to be evaluated in a per-project basis. But: - What are the thoughts of other folks on this matter? Cheers, FF [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62911/ -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco pgpgyYiD83_0e.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
