Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Fuel standards

2014-10-28 Thread Dmitriy Shulyak
Let's do the same for Fuel. Frankly, I'd say we could take OpenStack standards as is and use them for Fuel. But maybe there are other opinions. Let's discuss this and decide what to do. Do we actually need those standards at all? Agree that we can take openstack standarts as example, but

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Fuel standards

2014-10-28 Thread Meg McRoberts
Could we specify that all Fuel configuration files should include all allowable parameters. The optional parameters can be commented out but being able to uncomment and populate a parameter is a lot easier than having to find the exact name and order. For bonus points, we could include

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Fuel standards

2014-10-23 Thread Vladimir Kozhukalov
All, Recently we launched a couple new Fuel related projects (fuel_plugin_builder, fuel_agent, fuel_upgrade, etc.). Those projects are written in python and they use different approaches to organizing CLI, configuration, different third party libraries, etc. Besides, we have some old Fuel

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Fuel standards

2014-10-23 Thread Anton Zemlyanov
I have another example, nailgun and UI are bundled in FuelWeb being quite independent components. Nailgun is python REST API, while UI is HTML/CSS/JS + libs. I also support the idea making CLI a separate project, it is similar to FuelWeb UI, it uses the same REST API. Fuelclient lib is also good