Re: [openstack-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

[Julien Danjou]

On Fri, Apr 17 2015, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:

> Apparently not. But it would be good to get some bugs fixed in WSME
> before we come up with
> a final solution within each OpenStack project: Whether keep WSME or
> migrate to something
> else since it requires time.

You are now both members of wsme-core.

Enjoy, and happy hacking! :-)

-- 
Julien Danjou
/* Free Software hacker
   http://julien.danjou.info */


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

[Lucas Alvares Gomes]

> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
>
>> /me also deliberately volunteers cdent to wsme core :-)
>
>
> Feh. I suppose since most of the recent code and conversation has
> been you and me, that makes sense. If people agree, I'm happy to
> participate, but only if you're there too. That's only fair.
>

Hah yeah good conversations in the #wsme channel. Sure, count on me :-)

> I guess liking something is not a requirement for being core?
>

Apparently not. But it would be good to get some bugs fixed in WSME
before we come up with
a final solution within each OpenStack project: Whether keep WSME or
migrate to something
else since it requires time.

Cheers,
Lucas

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

[Chris Dent]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:


/me also deliberately volunteers cdent to wsme core :-)


Feh. I suppose since most of the recent code and conversation has
been you and me, that makes sense. If people agree, I'm happy to
participate, but only if you're there too. That's only fair.

I guess liking something is not a requirement for being core?

--
Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent
https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

[Lucas Alvares Gomes]

Hi,

>> * Should projects relying on WSME start thinking about migrating their APIs
>> to another technology?
>
> Maybe not migrating, but at least not starting something new with it.
>

Oh no, FWIW I don't even consider starting something new as a valid option here.

> Err, yeah, right. There are 4 people in wsme-core: Christophe (the
> original author) doesn't use WSME since at least 2 years, I'm pretty
> sure Doug & Ryan have other things to care about, and I don't use WSME
> anymore neither,
>

Right, so at present it is abandoned.

> So if anyone has a project that rely on WSME and wants to take care, no
> problem.
>

That's good to know. While I'm not super familiar with the WSME code
base I'm glad to help to
maintain it until we come to a final decision. Fixing some of the
current bugs and helping with
reviews.

/me also deliberately volunteers cdent to wsme core :-)

>> * Forking the project an option?
>
> No need to do that, I'm OK to add any competent people to wsme-core. :)
>

Cool!

Cheers,
Lucas

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

[Chris K]

Hello,

No need to do that, I'm OK to add any competent people to wsme-core. :)
>
While I don't have a great deal of experience with the WSME code base
(other then being a user of it), As Ironic is currently using WSME I would
offer to help. As a core on Ironic I would continue to expect that to take
the bulk of my time, but even so I feel I would be able to contribute time
for reviews and other project maintenance. Please let me know if I can be
of any help with this.

Chris Krelle
-- NobodyCam in IRC
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

[Chris Dent]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Julien Danjou wrote:


After using Pecan for a while, I'm leaning toward explicit routing too.
This Falcon API looks right too.
Honestly Pecan is messy. Most of the time, when coding, you have no clue
which one of the method is going to be picked in which controller class.


Yes, and there's no straightforward way (that I can find) to dump
the available routes (which is handy for testing, debugging,
documenting, etc).

While Falcon's style is a clear step in the right direction I think
it would be even better with a slight extension (which may already
exist, if it doesn't it would be easy to make): Load the route mappings
from a file so you (as a human) can have a single index into code.

A few years ago I was completely in love with selector[1] because
all it did was delegate an incoming WSGI request to one of several
WSGI callables based on request method and parameterized paths.

[1] https://github.com/lukearno/selector/

--
Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent
https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

[Julien Danjou]

On Thu, Apr 16 2015, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:

/me put his wsme-core hat on

> * Should projects relying on WSME start thinking about migrating their APIs
> to another technology?

Maybe not migrating, but at least not starting something new with it.

> * Can we somehow get the core team to start paying more attention to the
> project? Or can we elect some people willing to do some review to the core
> team ? If so, there's anyone out there that wants help with it?

Err, yeah, right. There are 4 people in wsme-core: Christophe (the
original author) doesn't use WSME since at least 2 years, I'm pretty
sure Doug & Ryan have other things to care about, and I don't use WSME
anymore neither,

So if anyone has a project that rely on WSME and wants to take care, no
problem.

> * Forking the project an option?

No need to do that, I'm OK to add any competent people to wsme-core. :)

-- 
Julien Danjou
# Free Software hacker
# http://julien.danjou.info


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

[Julien Danjou]

On Thu, Apr 16 2015, Jay Pipes wrote:

>> I think this may be the way to go. The intent of WSME is admirable
>> (the multiprotocol stack) but the execution leads to unwarranted
>> complexity.
>>
>> I think a framework more specifically dedicated to JSON APIs, or
>> even just being "webby" and correct would be better. Something
>> _much_ simpler and _much_ more aligned with WSGI.
>
> Amen. Honestly, I never liked WSME and now that projects are no longer
> supporting XML, I don't see any reason to continue using it.

Yeah, supporting XML was one of the good point of WSME… back then and a
reason to pick it… back then.

> Like you say, it adds way too much unnecessary complexity to the API
> framework, IMHO. Better to just use a simple JSONSchema framework
> (using the jsonschema Python library) to do input validations and have
> schema definitions in JSONSchema instead of random attribute factories
> like:

In Gnocchi we rely on voluptuous¹. The good part is that it allows to
write shorter and more Pythonic schema. The downside might be that it's
not portable obviously.

> Personally, I prefer the Falcon approach to routing, which is what I call
> "explicit object dispatch" ;)
>
> class ThingsResource:
>
> def on_get(self, req, resp, user_id):
> ... do some stuff
> resp.set_header('X-Powered-By', 'Small Furry Creatures')
> resp.status = falcon.HTTP_200
>
> things = ThingsResource()
> app = falcon.API()
> app.add_route('/{user_id}/things', things)

After using Pecan for a while, I'm leaning toward explicit routing too.
This Falcon API looks right too.
Honestly Pecan is messy. Most of the time, when coding, you have no clue
which one of the method is going to be picked in which controller class.

Cheers,
-- 
Julien Danjou
-- Free Software hacker
-- http://julien.danjou.info


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

[Jay Pipes]

On 04/16/2015 12:45 PM, Chris Dent wrote:

On 04/16/2015 07:41 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:

* Should projects relying on WSME start thinking about migrating
their APIs
to another technology?


I think this may be the way to go. The intent of WSME is admirable
(the multiprotocol stack) but the execution leads to unwarranted
complexity.

I think a framework more specifically dedicated to JSON APIs, or
even just being "webby" and correct would be better. Something
_much_ simpler and _much_ more aligned with WSGI.


Amen. Honestly, I never liked WSME and now that projects are no longer 
supporting XML, I don't see any reason to continue using it. Like you 
say, it adds way too much unnecessary complexity to the API framework, 
IMHO. Better to just use a simple JSONSchema framework (using the 
jsonschema Python library) to do input validations and have schema 
definitions in JSONSchema instead of random attribute factories like:


name = wsme.wsattr(wtypes.text, mandatory=True)

in model classes tightly coupled via @wsme_pecan.wsexpose decorators to 
controller class methods.



One thing I would _love_ is for us to get away from object dispatch
and use explicit routing. Because it's, uh, explicit. But that's a
personal preference.


Personally, I prefer the Falcon approach to routing, which is what I 
call "explicit object dispatch" ;)


class ThingsResource:

def on_get(self, req, resp, user_id):
... do some stuff
resp.set_header('X-Powered-By', 'Small Furry Creatures')
resp.status = falcon.HTTP_200

things = ThingsResource()
app = falcon.API()
app.add_route('/{user_id}/things', things)


On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Monty Taylor wrote:

Or - as you bring up - perhaps our use of this has wound up having been
a mistake and it's time to cut the cords. The original intent was to get
all of openstack using the same framework, but this has not come to
pass. :(


Right. For various reasons, including resistance to the Pecan/WSME 
framework in general.



Was there any hope that would be fulfilled by having everyone on the
same framework other than "it's more tidy"?


Not sure :(

-jay

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

[Chris Dent]

On 04/16/2015 07:41 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:

We have a couple of Openstack projects that uses WSME for their REST
APIs[1], but WSME project looks abandoned. The review stats are not good,
for the last 40 days the project didn't have a single review from a core
reviewer[2], the bugs are not being triaged nor fixed [3], I have been
trying to get some core people to look at a review for the last ~2 weeks by
asking for reviews in the #wsme channel without success. Plus, if you look
at the merged patches queue you will see that some people approve their own
patches*.


I've struggled with these issues too, largely because if you throw
anything other than a request that WSME expects at WSME, at worst
it breaks down and cries, at best it does something just plain weird.
I've tried to make some changes that will fix it, but a fix over here
breaks a thing over there (e.g. [1]).


* Should projects relying on WSME start thinking about migrating their APIs
to another technology?


I think this may be the way to go. The intent of WSME is admirable
(the multiprotocol stack) but the execution leads to unwarranted
complexity.

I think a framework more specifically dedicated to JSON APIs, or
even just being "webby" and correct would be better. Something
_much_ simpler and _much_ more aligned with WSGI.

One thing I would _love_ is for us to get away from object dispatch
and use explicit routing. Because it's, uh, explicit. But that's a
personal preference.


* Can we somehow get the core team to start paying more attention to the
project? Or can we elect some people willing to do some review to the core
team ? If so, there's anyone out there that wants help with it?


If we do choose to stick with WSME (which might be a good idea given
the number of projects using it) I think it will require quite a lot
of attention to make it work well[2] and thus would need some active
contributors.


* Forking the project an option?


In the context we're in wouldn't a friendly[3] takeover of the infra
config do the same job?

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015, Monty Taylor wrote:

Or - as you bring up - perhaps our use of this has wound up having been
a mistake and it's time to cut the cords. The original intent was to get
all of openstack using the same framework, but this has not come to pass. :(


Was there any hope that would be fulfilled by having everyone on the
same framework other than "it's more tidy"?

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172520/

[2] Where well means actually following the rules of HTTP, not just
handling requests that are specially structured to be okay with
WSME.

[3] Or hostile if that were really needed.
--
Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent
https://tank.peermore.com/tanks/cdent

__
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

[Monty Taylor]

On 04/16/2015 07:41 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We have a couple of Openstack projects that uses WSME for their REST
> APIs[1], but WSME project looks abandoned. The review stats are not good,
> for the last 40 days the project didn't have a single review from a core
> reviewer[2], the bugs are not being triaged nor fixed [3], I have been
> trying to get some core people to look at a review for the last ~2 weeks by
> asking for reviews in the #wsme channel without success. Plus, if you look
> at the merged patches queue you will see that some people approve their own
> patches*.
> 
> This all concerns me, I do not want Ironic to rely on unmaintained
> technology for our Rest API and I suspect that other projects using WSME
> doesn't want that either.
> 
> So how can we fix this problem?
> 
> * Should projects relying on WSME start thinking about migrating their APIs
> to another technology?
> 
> * Can we somehow get the core team to start paying more attention to the
> project? Or can we elect some people willing to do some review to the core
> team ? If so, there's anyone out there that wants help with it?
> 
> * Forking the project an option?
> 
> [1] https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C
> 
> 
> %93&q=user%3Aopenstack+extension%3Atxt+wsme&type=Code&ref=searchresults
> 
> [2] http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/wsme/40
> 
> [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/wsme/
> 
> * I don't consider it super bad for such a small project, but when nobody
> else get things reviewed apart from cores approving their own patches it
> does concerns me.

This does seem concerning, especially for something that we're
ostensibly using due to close ties with OpenStack.

Perhaps we should also investigate adoption of the library if the
original author has stopped caring?

Or - as you bring up - perhaps our use of this has wound up having been
a mistake and it's time to cut the cords. The original intent was to get
all of openstack using the same framework, but this has not come to pass. :(

__
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-dev] [wsme] [ironic] [ceilometer] [magnum] [kite] [tuskar] WSME unmaintained ?

[Lucas Alvares Gomes]

Hi,

We have a couple of Openstack projects that uses WSME for their REST
APIs[1], but WSME project looks abandoned. The review stats are not good,
for the last 40 days the project didn't have a single review from a core
reviewer[2], the bugs are not being triaged nor fixed [3], I have been
trying to get some core people to look at a review for the last ~2 weeks by
asking for reviews in the #wsme channel without success. Plus, if you look
at the merged patches queue you will see that some people approve their own
patches*.

This all concerns me, I do not want Ironic to rely on unmaintained
technology for our Rest API and I suspect that other projects using WSME
doesn't want that either.

So how can we fix this problem?

* Should projects relying on WSME start thinking about migrating their APIs
to another technology?

* Can we somehow get the core team to start paying more attention to the
project? Or can we elect some people willing to do some review to the core
team ? If so, there's anyone out there that wants help with it?

* Forking the project an option?

[1] https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C


%93&q=user%3Aopenstack+extension%3Atxt+wsme&type=Code&ref=searchresults

[2] http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/wsme/40

[3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/wsme/

* I don't consider it super bad for such a small project, but when nobody
else get things reviewed apart from cores approving their own patches it
does concerns me.

Cheers,
Lucas
__
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