Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

+1 for opening new threads regarding specific questions. On 21 Jan 2014, at 11:54, Renat Akhmerov wrote: > > On 21 Jan 2014, at 09:40, Sean Dague wrote: > >> On 01/21/2014 11:54 AM, Renat Akhmerov wrote: >>> >>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 22:00, Jamie Lennox >> > wrote

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 21 Jan 2014, at 09:40, Sean Dague wrote: > On 01/21/2014 11:54 AM, Renat Akhmerov wrote: >> >> On 17 Jan 2014, at 22:00, Jamie Lennox > > wrote: >> >>> (I don't buy the problem with large amounts of dependencies, if you >>> have a meta-package you just have on

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 21 Jan 2014, at 09:07, Jesse Noller wrote: > Do you use any other platform than Linux? Even donald - one of the python > packaging leads and PyPI leads said this is a bad end-user experience for > consumers of openstack clouds. That fact that someone (even very smart experience) said somet

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 21, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Alexei Kornienko mailto:alexei.kornie...@gmail.com>> wrote: >It is when most openstack clouds don’t just run keystone. Or nova, or swift. >Or when each client acts, smells and behaves differently. It matters a LOT >when you’re trying to write applications on top o

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

>It is when most openstack clouds don’t just run keystone. Or nova, or swift. Or when each client acts, smells and behaves differently. It matters a LOT when you’re trying to write applications on top of a mature openstack deployment. I still don't understand the problem here. Installed packages u

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > Sent: Wednesday, 22 January, 2014 4:35:39 AM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library > > I would like to propose to use this thread to gather and discuss software > requir

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 21, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Alexei Kornienko mailto:alexei.kornie...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello, I would like to end this requirements talk cause it doesn't make any sense in term of python clients. Initially the discussion was about "many clients projects with separate requirements" VS "sing

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

I would like to propose to use this thread to gather and discuss software requirements that our clients should meet. Later we'll summarize all the requirements and use them during our work of improving the clients. By reaching listed requirements we'll be able to evaluate the success of our refacto

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

Hello, I would like to end this requirements talk cause it doesn't make any sense in term of python clients. Initially the discussion was about "many clients projects with separate requirements" VS "single client project with single requirements list". At that moment we should have stop and actua

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 01/21/2014 11:54 AM, Renat Akhmerov wrote: > > On 17 Jan 2014, at 22:00, Jamie Lennox > wrote: > >> (I don't buy the problem with large amounts of dependencies, if you >> have a meta-package you just have one line in requirements and pip >> will figure the rest

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 18 Jan 2014, at 07:48, Sean Dague wrote: > I also think auto generated clients have a lot of challenges in the same > way that full javascript pages in browsers have. If you screw up in a > subtle way you can just completely disable your clients from connecting > to your server entirely (or b

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Renat Akhmerov mailto:rakhme...@mirantis.com>> wrote: On 17 Jan 2014, at 22:00, Jamie Lennox mailto:jamielen...@redhat.com>> wrote: (I don't buy the problem with large amounts of dependencies, if you have a meta-package you just have one line in requirements and

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 17 Jan 2014, at 22:06, Robert Collins wrote: > On 17 January 2014 09:22, Renat Akhmerov wrote: >> Since it’s pretty easy to get lost among all the opinions I’d like to >> clarify/ask a couple of things: >> >> Keeping all the clients physically separate/combining them in to a single >> libr

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 17 Jan 2014, at 22:00, Jamie Lennox wrote: > (I don't buy the problem with large amounts of dependencies, if you have a > meta-package you just have one line in requirements and pip will figure the > rest out.) +1 Renat Akhmerov @ Mirantis Inc. __

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 01/19/2014 11:50 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2014, at 5:37 PM, Jamie Lennox > wrote: > >> On Sat, 2014-01-18 at 09:13 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> I like the idea of a fresh start, but I don't think that's >>> incompatible with the other work to cl

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

s)" mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Sent: Saturday, 18 January, 2014 4:00:58 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Donald Stufft < don...@stufft.io<mailto:don...@stufft.io> > wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

requirements and pip will figure the rest out.) > > Jamie > > - Original Message - > > From: "Jonathan LaCour" > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage > questions)" >

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 19 January 2014 04:48, Sean Dague wrote: > On 01/18/2014 01:06 AM, Robert Collins wrote: >> Launchpadlib which builds on wadllib did *exactly* that. It worked >> fairly well with the one caveat that it fell into the ORM trap - just >> in time lookups for everything with crippling roundtrips. >

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 18, 2014, at 9:58 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2014, at 12:00 AM, Jamie Lennox wrote: > >> I can't see any reason that all of these situations can't be met. >> >> We can finally take the openstack pypi namespace, move keystoneclient -> >> openstack.keystone and similar for

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 18, 2014, at 12:58 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > Out of interest - whats the overhead of running tls compression > against compressed data? Is it really noticable? The overhead doesn’t really matter much as you want TLS Compression disabled because of CRIME anyways. Most Linux distros and

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 01/18/2014 01:06 AM, Robert Collins wrote: > On 17 January 2014 09:22, Renat Akhmerov wrote: >> Since it’s pretty easy to get lost among all the opinions I’d like to >> clarify/ask a couple of things: >> >> Keeping all the clients physically separate/combining them in to a single >> library. Tw

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

his from experience). > > Jamie > > - Original Message - >> From: "Jonathan LaCour" >> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >> >> Sent: Saturday, 18 January, 2014 4:00:58 AM >> Subject: Re: [o

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

Original Message - > From: "Jonathan LaCour" > mailto:jonathan-li...@cleverdevil.org>> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> > Sent: Saturday, 18 January, 2014 4:00:

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

elopment Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 4:59 PM, "Renat Akhmerov" > mailto:rakhme...@mirantis.com>> wr

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

meta-package you just have one line in requirements and pip will figure the > rest out.) > > Jamie > > - Original Message - > > From: "Jonathan LaCour" > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > openstack-dev@list

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

> From: Jesse Noller [jesse.nol...@rackspace.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:42 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" cl

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 17 January 2014 09:22, Renat Akhmerov wrote: > Since it’s pretty easy to get lost among all the opinions I’d like to > clarify/ask a couple of things: > > Keeping all the clients physically separate/combining them in to a single > library. Two things here: > > In case of combining them, what ex

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 17 January 2014 08:03, Alexei Kornienko wrote: > Hello Joe, > 2)Another option would be to follow waterfall process and create a solid > library interface before including it to all client projects. However such > approach this period can take unknown amount of time and can be easily > failed

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 17 January 2014 06:57, Mark Washenberger wrote: > Just throwing this out there because it seems relevant to client design. > > As we've been looking at porting clients to using v2 of the Images API, its > seems more and more to me that including the *server* version in the main > import path i

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

LaCour" > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > > Sent: Saturday, 18 January, 2014 4:00:58 AM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Donald Stufft < don...@stufft.io >

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 17 January 2014 06:39, Mark Washenberger wrote: > > There's a few more items here that are needed for glance to be able to work > with requests (which we really really want). > 1) Support for 100-expect-continue is probably going to be required in > glance as well as swift Is this currently s

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

02; johnu From: Jesse Noller [jesse.nol...@rackspace.com] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:42 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] a "

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 17 Jan 2014, at 10:04, Jonathan LaCour wrote: > "pip install openstack" That would be awesome :) Renat Akhmerov @ Mirantis Inc. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 4:59 PM, "Renat Akhmerov" > wrote: > > On 16 Jan 2014, at 13:06, Jesse Noller > wrote: > > Since it’s pretty easy to get lost among all the opinions I’d like to > clarify/ask a couple of things: > > >- Keeping

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Jesse Noller > wrote: > > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Renat Akhmerov > wrote: > > Since it’s pretty easy to get lost among all the opinions I’d like to > clarify/ask a couple of things: > > >- Keeping

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

It seems we have two target audiences here. Developers who work on OpenStack and developers who write apps to use it. In the long run I think we need to optimize for both of these groups. If we want developers to write applications to use OpenStack in python we likely need a "common" python SDK.

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

>> Keeping them separate is awesome for *us* but really, really, really >> sucks for users trying to use the system. > > I agree. Keeping them separate trades user usability for developer > usability, I think user usability is a better thing to strive for. I don't understand how multiple indepen

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 8:36 PM, "Renat Akhmerov" mailto:rakhme...@mirantis.com>> wrote: Ok, I think most of the reasoning you’ve said makes sense. So for a non-incubated project we’re going to have separate clients and then get them integrated into this single client once the project itself gets

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

Ok, I think most of the reasoning you’ve said makes sense. So for a non-incubated project we’re going to have separate clients and then get them integrated into this single client once the project itself gets incubated? Or it’s going to happen when the project gets integrated into core os projec

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 8:42 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 4:59 PM, "Renat Akhmerov" wrote: > >> On 16 Jan 2014, at 13:06, Jesse Noller wrote: >> Since it’s pretty easy to get lost among all the opinions I’d like to clarify/ask a couple of things: Keep

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 4:59 PM, "Renat Akhmerov" mailto:rakhme...@mirantis.com>> wrote: On 16 Jan 2014, at 13:06, Jesse Noller mailto:jesse.nol...@rackspace.com>> wrote: Since it’s pretty easy to get lost among all the opinions I’d like to clarify/ask a couple of things: * Keeping all the

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

*snip* > > > Distinction between client layers won't get lost and would only be > improved. My basic idea is the following: > > 1) Transport layer would handle all transport related stuff - HTTP, > JSON encoding, auth, caching, etc. > > 2) Model layer (Resource classes, BaseManager, etc.) will

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 16 Jan 2014, at 13:06, Jesse Noller wrote: >> Since it’s pretty easy to get lost among all the opinions I’d like to >> clarify/ask a couple of things: >> >> Keeping all the clients physically separate/combining them in to a single >> library. Two things here: >> In case of combining them, w

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 16 Jan 2014, at 12:36, Dean Troyer wrote: > I've already written a POC for solum and some other things to demonstrate how > to add additional projects simply by installing the python-*client package. > https://github.com/dtroyer/python-oscplugin is a trivial example. Thanks, this link is

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 3:22 PM, Renat Akhmerov wrote: > Has anyone ever considered an idea of generating a fully functional REST > client automatically based on an API specification (WADL could be used for > that)? Not sure how convenient it would be, it really depends on a particular > implemen

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Renat Akhmerov wrote: > >> Since it’s pretty easy to get lost among all the opinions I’d like to >> clarify/ask a couple of things: >> >> Keeping all the clients physically separate/combining them in to a sing

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Renat Akhmerov mailto:rakhme...@mirantis.com>> wrote: Since it’s pretty easy to get lost among all the opinions I’d like to clarify/ask a couple of things: * Keeping all the clients physically separate/combining them in to a single library. Two things here:

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Renat Akhmerov wrote: > > >- Keeping all the clients physically separate/combining them in to a >single library. Two things here: > - In case of combining them, what exact project are we considering? > If this list is limited to core projects li

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

Since it’s pretty easy to get lost among all the opinions I’d like to clarify/ask a couple of things: Keeping all the clients physically separate/combining them in to a single library. Two things here: In case of combining them, what exact project are we considering? If this list is limited to

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > 2) major overhaul of client libraries so they are all based off a common > base library. This would cover namespace changes, and possible a push to > move CLI into python-openstackclient

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

on board until a 1.0.0 release. -Doug M. From: Alexei Kornienko Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Date: Thursday, January 16, 2014 at 1:03 PM To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org" Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" clie

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Joe Gordon wrote: > 2) major overhaul of client libraries so they are all based off a common base > library. This would cover namespace changes, and possible a push to move CLI > into python-openstackclient This seems like the biggest win to me. ---

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Alexei Kornienko < alexei.kornie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Joe, > > > continuous refactoring and syncing across 22+ repositories sounds like a > nightmare, one that I would like to avoid. > > You are right this is not easy. > > However I have several reasons to

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

Hello Joe, continuous refactoring and syncing across 22+ repositories sounds like a nightmare, one that I would like to avoid. You are right this is not easy. However I have several reasons to do that: The hardest part is to bring basic stuff in sync across all projects (That's what we are do

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:39 AM, Mark Washenberger mailto:mark.washenber...@markwash.net>> wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Dean Troyer mailto:dtro...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jesse Noller mailto:jesse.nol...@rackspace.com>> wrote: On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:26 AM,

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Alexei Kornienko < alexei.kornie...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 01/16/2014 06:15 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Alexei Kornienko > wrote: > > On 01/16/2014 05:25 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Joe Gordon wro

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 15/01/14 21:35 +, Jesse Noller wrote: > >> >> On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Doug Hellmann >> wrote: >> >> Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or >>> actively working on, code related to a "common" clien

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Alexei Kornienko < alexei.kornie...@gmail.com> wrote: > >I did notice, however, that neutronclient is > conspicuously absent from the Work Items in the blueprint's Whiteboard. > It will surely be added later. We already working on several things in > parallel and w

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jesse Noller > wrote: > >> On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Justin Hammond >> wrote: >> >> I'm not sure if it was said, but which httplib using being used (urllib3 >> maybe?). Also I noticed many people were talk

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 01/16/2014 06:15 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Alexei Kornienko mailto:alexei.kornie...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 01/16/2014 05:25 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Joe Gordon > wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:45

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Jesse Noller > wrote: > >> >> On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:53 AM, Chmouel Boudjnah >> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Chris Jones wr

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > Right, but requests supports chunked-transfer encoding properly, so > really there's no reason those clients could not move to a > requests-based codebase. > Absolutely...it was totally me chickening out at the time why they didn't get change

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > Right, but requests supports chunked-transfer encoding properly, so > really there's no reason those clients could not move to a > requests-based codebase. > We had that discussion for swiftclient and we are not against it but unfortunately the

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 10:06 -0600, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jesse Noller > wrote: > On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Justin Hammond > wrote: > > I'm not sure if it was said, but which httplib using being > > used (urllib3 > > maybe?

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Alexei Kornienko < alexei.kornie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Knowing usual openstack workflow I'm afraid that #1,#2 with a waterfall > approach may take years to be complete. > And after they'll be approved it will become clear that this architecture > is already outda

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

My prioritization of noauth is rooted in the fact that we're finding that the current pattern of hitting auth to validate a token is not scaling well. Out current solution to this scale issue is: - use noauth when possible between the services - use normal auth for public services - provide a meth

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Alexei Kornienko mailto:alexei.kornie...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 01/16/2014 05:25 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Joe Gordon mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Jesse Noller mailto:jesse.nol...@rackspace.co

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: > After speaking with people working on OSC and looking at the code base in > depth; I don’t think this addresses what Chris is implying: OSC wraps the > individual CLIs built by each project today, instead of the inverse: a > common backend tha

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: > On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Justin Hammond > wrote: > > I'm not sure if it was said, but which httplib using being used (urllib3 > maybe?). Also I noticed many people were talking about supporting auth > properly, but are there any intention

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Doug Hellmann > wrote: > > > Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or > actively working on, code related to a "common" client library -- something > meant to be reused directly as a b

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: > Can you detail out noauth for me; and I would say the defacto httplib in > python today is python-requests - urllib3 is also good but I would say from > a *consumer* standpoint requests offers more in terms of usability / > extensibility > FY

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

I'm not sure if it was said, but which httplib using being used (urllib3 maybe?). Also I noticed many people were talking about supporting auth properly, but are there any intentions to properly support 'noauth' (python-neutronclient, for instance, doesn't support it properly as of this writing)?

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, 2014-01-16 at 09:03 +0100, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 15/01/14 21:35 +, Jesse Noller wrote: > > > >On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Doug Hellmann > >wrote: > > > >> Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or > >> actively working on, code related to a "common" cl

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 01/16/2014 05:25 PM, Jesse Noller wrote: On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Joe Gordon > wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Jesse Noller mailto:jesse.nol...@rackspace.com>> wrote: On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:53 AM, Chmouel Boudjnah mailto:chmo...@enova

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Justin Hammond mailto:justin.hamm...@rackspace.com>> wrote: I'm not sure if it was said, but which httplib using being used (urllib3 maybe?). Also I noticed many people were talking about supporting auth properly, but are there any intentions to properly support 'noa

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Joe Gordon mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Jesse Noller mailto:jesse.nol...@rackspace.com>> wrote: On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:53 AM, Chmouel Boudjnah mailto:chmo...@enovance.com>> wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Chri

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Jesse Noller wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:53 AM, Chmouel Boudjnah > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Chris Jones wrote: > >> Once a common library is in place, is there any intention to (or >> resistance against) collapsing the clients into a s

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:53 AM, Chmouel Boudjnah mailto:chmo...@enovance.com>> wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Chris Jones mailto:c...@tenshu.net>> wrote: Once a common library is in place, is there any intention to (or resistance against) collapsing the clients into a single project or

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Chris Jones wrote: > Once a common library is in place, is there any intention to (or > resistance against) collapsing the clients into a single project or even a > single command (a la busybox)? that's what openstackclient is here for https://github.com/opens

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:42 AM, "Chris Jones" mailto:c...@tenshu.net>> wrote: Hi Once a common library is in place, is there any intention to (or resistance against) collapsing the clients into a single project or even a single command (a la busybox)? (I'm thinking reduced load for packagers,

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

> On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:09 AM, "Flavio Percoco" wrote: > >> On 15/01/14 21:35 +, Jesse Noller wrote: >> >>> On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Doug Hellmann >>> wrote: >>> >>> Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or >>> actively working on, code related to a "comm

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

Hi Once a common library is in place, is there any intention to (or resistance against) collapsing the clients into a single project or even a single command (a la busybox)? (I'm thinking reduced load for packagers, simpler installation for users, etc) Cheers, -- Chris Jones > On 15 Jan 2014,

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On 15/01/14 21:35 +, Jesse Noller wrote: On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or actively working on, code related to a "common" client library -- something meant to be reused directly as a basis for creating

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Doug Hellmann > wrote: > Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or actively > working on, code related to a "common" c

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

>I did notice, however, that neutronclient is conspicuously absent from the Work Items in the blueprint's Whiteboard. It will surely be added later. We already working on several things in parallel and we will add neutronclient soon. >I would love to see a bit more detail on the structure of the l

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

Doug Hellmann writes: > Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or > actively working on, code related to a "common" client library -- something > meant to be reused directly as a basis for creating a common library for > all of the openstack clients to use. There's a blu

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Doug Hellmann < > doug.hellm...@dreamhost.com> wrote: > >> Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or >> actively working on, code related to a "common" client library -- something >> m

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 15, 2014, at 4:55 PM, "Renat Akhmerov" mailto:rakhme...@mirantis.com>> wrote: Great idea, fully support it. We’re interested in that too. One specific thing that was mentioned is the ability to mock auth service seems to be very useful for some test scenarios, we came across that recen

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

Great idea, fully support it. We’re interested in that too. One specific thing that was mentioned is the ability to mock auth service seems to be very useful for some test scenarios, we came across that recently. Renat Akhmerov @ Mirantis Inc. On 15 Jan 2014, at 14:07, Sylvain Bauza wrote: >

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or > actively working on, code related to a "common" client library -- something > meant to be reused directly as a basis for creating a common library for > all of the openstac

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

Hi Doug, Count me in. Climate is currently working on delivering its first python-climateclient but it would be great if we could leverage any olso lib for this. -Sylvain 2014/1/15 Doug Hellmann > Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or > actively working on, code

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:37 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or > > actively working on, code related to a "common" client library -- > > something meant to be reused directly as a

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:37 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or > actively working on, code related to a "common" client library -- > something meant to be reused directly as a basis for creating a common > library for all of the opensta

Re: [openstack-dev] a "common" client library

On Jan 15, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or actively > working on, code related to a "common" client library -- something meant to > be reused directly as a basis for creating a common library for all of the > opensta

[openstack-dev] a "common" client library

Several people have mentioned to me that they are interested in, or actively working on, code related to a "common" client library -- something meant to be reused directly as a basis for creating a common library for all of the openstack clients to use. There's a blueprint [1] in oslo, and I believ