Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Support for plugins in fuel client

2014-06-26 Thread Andrey Danin
Cool. I have no objections. On Jun 25, 2014 9:27 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak dshul...@mirantis.com wrote: As i mentioned cliff uses similar approach, extending app by means of entry points, and written by same author. So i think stevedore will be used in cliff, or maybe already used in newer

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Support for plugins in fuel client

2014-06-24 Thread Andrey Danin
Why not to use stevedore? On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Igor Kalnitsky ikalnit...@mirantis.com wrote: Hi guys, Actually, I'm not a fun of cliff, but I think it's a good solution to use it in our fuel client. Here some pros: * pluggable design: we can encapsulate entire command logic

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Support for plugins in fuel client

2014-06-24 Thread Dmitriy Shulyak
As i mentioned cliff uses similar approach, extending app by means of entry points, and written by same author. So i think stevedore will be used in cliff, or maybe already used in newer versions. But apart of stevedore-like dynamic extensions - cliff provides modular layers for cli app, it is

[openstack-dev] [Fuel] Support for plugins in fuel client

2014-06-18 Thread Dmitriy Shulyak
Hi folks, I am wondering what our story/vision for plugins in fuel client [1]? We can benefit from using cliff [2] as framework for fuel cli, apart from common code for building cli applications on top of argparse, it provides nice feature that allows to dynamicly add actions by means of entry

Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Support for plugins in fuel client

2014-06-18 Thread Igor Kalnitsky
Hi guys, Actually, I'm not a fun of cliff, but I think it's a good solution to use it in our fuel client. Here some pros: * pluggable design: we can encapsulate entire command logic in separate plugin file * builtin output formatters: we no need to implement various formatters to represent