Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Arnaud Legendre wrote: > All the things that you mention here seem to be technical difficulties. > I don't think technical difficulties should drive the experience of the > user. > Also, Zhi Yan seems to be able to make that happen :) > +1 > > Thanks, > Arnaud > > - Original Message - > From: "Julien Danjou" > To: "Arnaud Legendre" > Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:43:38 AM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file > > On Tue, Jun 17 2014, Arnaud Legendre wrote: > > > @ZhiYan: I don't like the idea of removing the sample configuration > file(s) > > from the git repository. Many people do not want to have to checkout the > > entire codebase and tox every time they have to verify a variable name > in a > > configuration file. I know many people who were really frustrated where > they > > realized that the sample config file was gone from the Nova repo. > > However, I agree with the fact that it would be better if the sample was > > 100% accurate: so the way I would love to see this working is to generate > > the sample file every time there is a config change (this being totally > > automated (maybe at the gate level...)). > > You're a bit late on this. :) > So what I did these last months (year?) in several project, is to check > at gate time the configuration file that is automatically generated > against what's in the patches. > That turned out to be a real problem because sometimes some options > changes from the eternal module we rely on (e.g. keystone authtoken or > oslo.messaging). In the end many projects (like Nova) disabled this > check altogether, and therefore removed the generated configuration file > From the git repository. > > > @Julien: I would be interested to understand the value that you see of > > having only one config file? At this point, I don't see why managing one > > file is more complicated than managing several files especially when they > > are organized by categories. Also, scrolling through the registry > settings > > every time I want to modify an api setting seem to add some overhead. > > Because there's no way to automatically generate several configuration > files with each its own set of options using oslo.config. > > Glance is (one of?) the last project in OpenStack to manually write its > sample configuration file, which are not up to date obviously. > > So really this is mainly about following what every other projects did > the last year(s). > > -- > Julien Danjou > -- Free Software hacker > -- > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://julien.danjou.info/&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=5wWaXo2oVaivfKLCMyU6Z9UTO8HOfeGCzbGHAT4gZpo%3D%0A&m=a7BLHSmThzpuZ12zhxZOghcz1HWzlQNCbEAXFoAcFSY%3D%0A&s=fe3ff048464bdba926f7da2f19834adba8df90b69fdb2ddd63a35f8288e7fed2 > > ___ > 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] Unifying configuration file
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 09:29 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Hey > > > > On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 17:43 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 17 2014, Arnaud Legendre wrote: > >> > @Julien: I would be interested to understand the value that you see of > >> > having only one config file? At this point, I don't see why managing one > >> > file is more complicated than managing several files especially when they > >> > are organized by categories. Also, scrolling through the registry > >> > settings > >> > every time I want to modify an api setting seem to add some overhead. > >> > >> Because there's no way to automatically generate several configuration > >> files with each its own set of options using oslo.config. > > > > I think that's a failing of oslo.config, though. Glance's layout of > > config files is useful and intuitive. > > The config generator lets you specify the modules, libraries, and > files to be used to generate a config file. It even has a way to > specify which files to ignore. So I think we have everything we need > in the config generator, but we need to run it more than once, with > different inputs, to generate multiple files. Yep, except the magic way we troll through the code, loading modules, introspecting what config options were registered, etc. will likely make this a frustrating experience to get right. I took a little time to hack up a much more simple and explicit approach to config file generation and posted a draft here: https://review.openstack.org/100946 The docstring at the top of the file explains the approach: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100946/1/oslo/config/generator.py Thanks, Mark. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hey > > On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 17:43 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 17 2014, Arnaud Legendre wrote: >> >> > @ZhiYan: I don't like the idea of removing the sample configuration file(s) >> > from the git repository. Many people do not want to have to checkout the >> > entire codebase and tox every time they have to verify a variable name in a >> > configuration file. I know many people who were really frustrated where >> > they >> > realized that the sample config file was gone from the Nova repo. >> > However, I agree with the fact that it would be better if the sample was >> > 100% accurate: so the way I would love to see this working is to generate >> > the sample file every time there is a config change (this being totally >> > automated (maybe at the gate level...)). >> >> You're a bit late on this. :) >> So what I did these last months (year?) in several project, is to check >> at gate time the configuration file that is automatically generated >> against what's in the patches. >> That turned out to be a real problem because sometimes some options >> changes from the eternal module we rely on (e.g. keystone authtoken or >> oslo.messaging). In the end many projects (like Nova) disabled this >> check altogether, and therefore removed the generated configuration file >> From the git repository. > > For those that casually want to refer to the sample config, what would > help if there was Jenkins jobs to publish the generated sample config > file somewhere. We talked at one point about having it added to one of the doc builds. Since an accurate file requires having all of the dependencies for the app installed, it might be easiest to do it in the developer doc build where that will already be the case. Ultimately we would want it in the config guide as well. > > For people installing the software, it would probably be nice if pbr > added 'python setup.py sample_config' or something. > >> > @Julien: I would be interested to understand the value that you see of >> > having only one config file? At this point, I don't see why managing one >> > file is more complicated than managing several files especially when they >> > are organized by categories. Also, scrolling through the registry settings >> > every time I want to modify an api setting seem to add some overhead. >> >> Because there's no way to automatically generate several configuration >> files with each its own set of options using oslo.config. > > I think that's a failing of oslo.config, though. Glance's layout of > config files is useful and intuitive. The config generator lets you specify the modules, libraries, and files to be used to generate a config file. It even has a way to specify which files to ignore. So I think we have everything we need in the config generator, but we need to run it more than once, with different inputs, to generate multiple files. Doug > >> Glance is (one of?) the last project in OpenStack to manually write its >> sample configuration file, which are not up to date obviously. > > Neutron too, but not split out per-service. I don't find Neutron's > config file layout as intuitive. > >> So really this is mainly about following what every other projects did >> the last year(s). > > There's a balance here between what makes technical sense and what helps > users. If Glance has support for generating a unified config file while > also manually maintaining the split configs, I think that's a fine > compromise. > > Mark. > > > ___ > 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] Unifying configuration file
> -Original Message- > From: Mark McLoughlin [mailto:mar...@redhat.com] > Sent: 18 June 2014 06:58 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file > > Hey > > On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 17:43 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 17 2014, Arnaud Legendre wrote: > > > > > @ZhiYan: I don't like the idea of removing the sample configuration > > > file(s) from the git repository. Many people do not want to have to > > > checkout the entire codebase and tox every time they have to verify > > > a variable name in a configuration file. I know many people who were > > > really frustrated where they realized that the sample config file was gone > from the Nova repo. > > > However, I agree with the fact that it would be better if the sample > > > was 100% accurate: so the way I would love to see this working is to > > > generate the sample file every time there is a config change (this > > > being totally automated (maybe at the gate level...)). > > > > You're a bit late on this. :) > > So what I did these last months (year?) in several project, is to > > check at gate time the configuration file that is automatically > > generated against what's in the patches. > > That turned out to be a real problem because sometimes some options > > changes from the eternal module we rely on (e.g. keystone authtoken or > > oslo.messaging). In the end many projects (like Nova) disabled this > > check altogether, and therefore removed the generated configuration > > file From the git repository. Yes and the users who relied on those config files in the github were really upset about that. > > For those that casually want to refer to the sample config, what would help if > there was Jenkins jobs to publish the generated sample config file > somewhere. > > For people installing the software, it would probably be nice if pbr added > 'python setup.py sample_config' or something. > > > > @Julien: I would be interested to understand the value that you see > > > of having only one config file? At this point, I don't see why > > > managing one file is more complicated than managing several files > > > especially when they are organized by categories. Also, scrolling > > > through the registry settings every time I want to modify an api setting > seem to add some overhead. > > > > Because there's no way to automatically generate several configuration > > files with each its own set of options using oslo.config. > > I think that's a failing of oslo.config, though. Glance's layout of config > files is > useful and intuitive. I totally agree. > > > Glance is (one of?) the last project in OpenStack to manually write > > its sample configuration file, which are not up to date obviously. We can learn from others, can't we? I think the key point here is part of the comment in the Cinder discussion to remove the sample config https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96581/ (Mathieu Jun 6 7:53 PM): """ Note that it's not just about Cinder, its about all the other projects. They [ops; Erno add] don't track changes in Gerrit, its not something they do in their day-to-day job. It just happened that we heard about this change on the openstack-operators mailinglist. """ We are again having this discussion on the dev list without involving the most important group, our ops. > > Neutron too, but not split out per-service. I don't find Neutron's config file > layout as intuitive. > > > So really this is mainly about following what every other projects did > > the last year(s). > > There's a balance here between what makes technical sense and what helps > users. If Glance has support for generating a unified config file while also > manually maintaining the split configs, I think that's a fine compromise. +100 I'd add to that: until olso.config can provide us more than one config file generated automatically. Now lets remember that if you run glance with the registry on somewhere else than devstack you are most probably running registry and API on different servers. Making them relying on single config is about as smart idea as saying that we should not provide project independent configs, but combine all the configs to a single OpenStack config file with nice note "good luck trying to figure out what bits you need from this". That would probably make sense if you never run these out of devstack having all the services on same machine anyways. > > Mark. > > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev - Erno (jokke) Kuvaja ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file
Hey On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 17:43 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17 2014, Arnaud Legendre wrote: > > > @ZhiYan: I don't like the idea of removing the sample configuration file(s) > > from the git repository. Many people do not want to have to checkout the > > entire codebase and tox every time they have to verify a variable name in a > > configuration file. I know many people who were really frustrated where they > > realized that the sample config file was gone from the Nova repo. > > However, I agree with the fact that it would be better if the sample was > > 100% accurate: so the way I would love to see this working is to generate > > the sample file every time there is a config change (this being totally > > automated (maybe at the gate level...)). > > You're a bit late on this. :) > So what I did these last months (year?) in several project, is to check > at gate time the configuration file that is automatically generated > against what's in the patches. > That turned out to be a real problem because sometimes some options > changes from the eternal module we rely on (e.g. keystone authtoken or > oslo.messaging). In the end many projects (like Nova) disabled this > check altogether, and therefore removed the generated configuration file > From the git repository. For those that casually want to refer to the sample config, what would help if there was Jenkins jobs to publish the generated sample config file somewhere. For people installing the software, it would probably be nice if pbr added 'python setup.py sample_config' or something. > > @Julien: I would be interested to understand the value that you see of > > having only one config file? At this point, I don't see why managing one > > file is more complicated than managing several files especially when they > > are organized by categories. Also, scrolling through the registry settings > > every time I want to modify an api setting seem to add some overhead. > > Because there's no way to automatically generate several configuration > files with each its own set of options using oslo.config. I think that's a failing of oslo.config, though. Glance's layout of config files is useful and intuitive. > Glance is (one of?) the last project in OpenStack to manually write its > sample configuration file, which are not up to date obviously. Neutron too, but not split out per-service. I don't find Neutron's config file layout as intuitive. > So really this is mainly about following what every other projects did > the last year(s). There's a balance here between what makes technical sense and what helps users. If Glance has support for generating a unified config file while also manually maintaining the split configs, I think that's a fine compromise. Mark. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file
On 17/06/14 23:43, Julien Danjou wrote: On Tue, Jun 17 2014, Arnaud Legendre wrote: @ZhiYan: I don't like the idea of removing the sample configuration file(s) from the git repository. Many people do not want to have to checkout the entire codebase and tox every time they have to verify a variable name in a configuration file. I know many people who were really frustrated where they realized that the sample config file was gone from the Nova repo. However, I agree with the fact that it would be better if the sample was 100% accurate: so the way I would love to see this working is to generate the sample file every time there is a config change (this being totally automated (maybe at the gate level...)). You're a bit late on this. :) So what I did these last months (year?) in several project, is to check at gate time the configuration file that is automatically generated against what's in the patches. That turned out to be a real problem because sometimes some options changes from the eternal module we rely on (e.g. keystone authtoken or oslo.messaging). In the end many projects (like Nova) disabled this check altogether, and therefore removed the generated configuration file From the git repository. ...and users absolutely hated this. Please refer to the comments on the recent cinder patch to remove cinder.conf.sample: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96581/ , and please find out a way forward for glance that also makes users happy :) Regards, Tom ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file
All the things that you mention here seem to be technical difficulties. I don't think technical difficulties should drive the experience of the user. Also, Zhi Yan seems to be able to make that happen :) Thanks, Arnaud - Original Message - From: "Julien Danjou" To: "Arnaud Legendre" Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:43:38 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file On Tue, Jun 17 2014, Arnaud Legendre wrote: > @ZhiYan: I don't like the idea of removing the sample configuration file(s) > from the git repository. Many people do not want to have to checkout the > entire codebase and tox every time they have to verify a variable name in a > configuration file. I know many people who were really frustrated where they > realized that the sample config file was gone from the Nova repo. > However, I agree with the fact that it would be better if the sample was > 100% accurate: so the way I would love to see this working is to generate > the sample file every time there is a config change (this being totally > automated (maybe at the gate level...)). You're a bit late on this. :) So what I did these last months (year?) in several project, is to check at gate time the configuration file that is automatically generated against what's in the patches. That turned out to be a real problem because sometimes some options changes from the eternal module we rely on (e.g. keystone authtoken or oslo.messaging). In the end many projects (like Nova) disabled this check altogether, and therefore removed the generated configuration file >From the git repository. > @Julien: I would be interested to understand the value that you see of > having only one config file? At this point, I don't see why managing one > file is more complicated than managing several files especially when they > are organized by categories. Also, scrolling through the registry settings > every time I want to modify an api setting seem to add some overhead. Because there's no way to automatically generate several configuration files with each its own set of options using oslo.config. Glance is (one of?) the last project in OpenStack to manually write its sample configuration file, which are not up to date obviously. So really this is mainly about following what every other projects did the last year(s). -- Julien Danjou -- Free Software hacker -- https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://julien.danjou.info/&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=5wWaXo2oVaivfKLCMyU6Z9UTO8HOfeGCzbGHAT4gZpo%3D%0A&m=a7BLHSmThzpuZ12zhxZOghcz1HWzlQNCbEAXFoAcFSY%3D%0A&s=fe3ff048464bdba926f7da2f19834adba8df90b69fdb2ddd63a35f8288e7fed2 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file
On Tue, Jun 17 2014, Arnaud Legendre wrote: > @ZhiYan: I don't like the idea of removing the sample configuration file(s) > from the git repository. Many people do not want to have to checkout the > entire codebase and tox every time they have to verify a variable name in a > configuration file. I know many people who were really frustrated where they > realized that the sample config file was gone from the Nova repo. > However, I agree with the fact that it would be better if the sample was > 100% accurate: so the way I would love to see this working is to generate > the sample file every time there is a config change (this being totally > automated (maybe at the gate level...)). You're a bit late on this. :) So what I did these last months (year?) in several project, is to check at gate time the configuration file that is automatically generated against what's in the patches. That turned out to be a real problem because sometimes some options changes from the eternal module we rely on (e.g. keystone authtoken or oslo.messaging). In the end many projects (like Nova) disabled this check altogether, and therefore removed the generated configuration file From the git repository. > @Julien: I would be interested to understand the value that you see of > having only one config file? At this point, I don't see why managing one > file is more complicated than managing several files especially when they > are organized by categories. Also, scrolling through the registry settings > every time I want to modify an api setting seem to add some overhead. Because there's no way to automatically generate several configuration files with each its own set of options using oslo.config. Glance is (one of?) the last project in OpenStack to manually write its sample configuration file, which are not up to date obviously. So really this is mainly about following what every other projects did the last year(s). -- Julien Danjou -- Free Software hacker -- http://julien.danjou.info 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] Unifying configuration file
On 17/06/14 23:30, Arnaud Legendre wrote: @ZhiYan: I don't like the idea of removing the sample configuration file(s) from the git repository. Many people do not want to have to checkout the entire codebase and tox every time they have to verify a variable name in a configuration file. I know many people who were really frustrated where they realized that the sample config file was gone from the Nova repo. For reference, see also the recent discussion around cinder.conf.sample: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/96581/ to learn more about ops wishes regarding sample configuration files. However, I agree with the fact that it would be better if the sample was 100% accurate: so the way I would love to see this working is to generate the sample file every time there is a config change (this being totally automated (maybe at the gate level...)). @Julien: I would be interested to understand the value that you see of having only one config file? At this point, I don't see why managing one file is more complicated than managing several files especially when they are organized by categories. Also, scrolling through the registry settings every time I want to modify an api setting seem to add some overhead. Thanks, Arnaud - Original Message - From: "Zhi Yan Liu" To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 7:47:53 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file Frankly I don't like the idea of using single configuration for all service too, I think it will be cool if we can generate separated configuration template files automatically for each Glance service. So besides https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83327/ , actually I'm working on that idea as well, to allow deployer generates separated configuration files on demand, and then probably we could move those templates away from code repo. But I like your idea for paste.ini template part. zhiyan On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: I do not like this idea. As now we are on 5 different config files (+ policy and schema). One for each (API and Registry) would still be ok, but putting all together would just become messy. If the *-paste.ini will be migrated to .conf files that would bring it down, but please do not try to mix reg and API configs together. - Erno (jokke) Kuvaja -Original Message- From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] Sent: 17 June 2014 15:19 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file On 17/06/14 15:59 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: Hi guys, So I've started to look at the configuration file used by Glance and I want to switch to one configuration file only. I stumbled upon this blueprint: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/%2Bspec/use-oslo-config&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=5wWaXo2oVaivfKLCMyU6Z9UTO8HOfeGCzbGHAT4gZpo%3D%0A&m=QTguordmDDZNC%2FRUVedjVKf5cPErz5dhlJAZA56YqWU%3D%0A&s=ce068ea89b0fbf4260f6f8f18758f99b407536ec391c7c7392a079fc550ba468 w.r.t using config.generator https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83327/ which fits. Does not look like I can assign myself to it, but if someone can do so, go ahead. So I've started to work on that, and I got it working. My only problem right now, concerned the [paste_deploy] options that is provided by Glance. I'd like to remove this section altogether, as it's not possible to have it and have the same configuration file read by both glance-api and glance-registry. My idea is also to unify glance-api-paste.ini and glance-registry-paste.ini into glance-paste.ini and then have each server reads their default pipeline (pipeline:glance-api). Does that sounds reasonable to everyone? +1, it sounds like a good idea. I don't think we need to maintain 2 separate config files, especially now that the registry service is optional. Thanks for working on this. Flavio -- @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 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file
@ZhiYan: I don't like the idea of removing the sample configuration file(s) from the git repository. Many people do not want to have to checkout the entire codebase and tox every time they have to verify a variable name in a configuration file. I know many people who were really frustrated where they realized that the sample config file was gone from the Nova repo. However, I agree with the fact that it would be better if the sample was 100% accurate: so the way I would love to see this working is to generate the sample file every time there is a config change (this being totally automated (maybe at the gate level...)). @Julien: I would be interested to understand the value that you see of having only one config file? At this point, I don't see why managing one file is more complicated than managing several files especially when they are organized by categories. Also, scrolling through the registry settings every time I want to modify an api setting seem to add some overhead. Thanks, Arnaud - Original Message - From: "Zhi Yan Liu" To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 7:47:53 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file Frankly I don't like the idea of using single configuration for all service too, I think it will be cool if we can generate separated configuration template files automatically for each Glance service. So besides https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83327/ , actually I'm working on that idea as well, to allow deployer generates separated configuration files on demand, and then probably we could move those templates away from code repo. But I like your idea for paste.ini template part. zhiyan On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: > I do not like this idea. As now we are on 5 different config files (+ policy > and schema). One for each (API and Registry) would still be ok, but putting > all together would just become messy. > > If the *-paste.ini will be migrated to .conf files that would bring it down, > but please do not try to mix reg and API configs together. > > - Erno (jokke) Kuvaja > >> -Original Message- >> From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] >> Sent: 17 June 2014 15:19 >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file >> >> On 17/06/14 15:59 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: >> >Hi guys, >> > >> >So I've started to look at the configuration file used by Glance and I >> >want to switch to one configuration file only. >> >I stumbled upon this blueprint: >> > >> > >> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/%2Bspec/use-oslo-config&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=5wWaXo2oVaivfKLCMyU6Z9UTO8HOfeGCzbGHAT4gZpo%3D%0A&m=QTguordmDDZNC%2FRUVedjVKf5cPErz5dhlJAZA56YqWU%3D%0A&s=ce068ea89b0fbf4260f6f8f18758f99b407536ec391c7c7392a079fc550ba468 >> > >> >> w.r.t using config.generator https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83327/ >> >> >which fits. >> > >> >Does not look like I can assign myself to it, but if someone can do so, >> >go ahead. >> > >> >So I've started to work on that, and I got it working. My only problem >> >right now, concerned the [paste_deploy] options that is provided by >> >Glance. I'd like to remove this section altogether, as it's not >> >possible to have it and have the same configuration file read by both >> >glance-api and glance-registry. >> >My idea is also to unify glance-api-paste.ini and >> >glance-registry-paste.ini into glance-paste.ini and then have each >> >server reads their default pipeline (pipeline:glance-api). >> > >> >Does that sounds reasonable to everyone? >> >> +1, it sounds like a good idea. I don't think we need to maintain 2 >> separate config files, especially now that the registry service is optional. >> >> Thanks for working on this. >> Flavio >> >> -- >> @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] Unifying configuration file
Frankly I don't like the idea of using single configuration for all service too, I think it will be cool if we can generate separated configuration template files automatically for each Glance service. So besides https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83327/ , actually I'm working on that idea as well, to allow deployer generates separated configuration files on demand, and then probably we could move those templates away from code repo. But I like your idea for paste.ini template part. zhiyan On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote: > I do not like this idea. As now we are on 5 different config files (+ policy > and schema). One for each (API and Registry) would still be ok, but putting > all together would just become messy. > > If the *-paste.ini will be migrated to .conf files that would bring it down, > but please do not try to mix reg and API configs together. > > - Erno (jokke) Kuvaja > >> -Original Message- >> From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] >> Sent: 17 June 2014 15:19 >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file >> >> On 17/06/14 15:59 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: >> >Hi guys, >> > >> >So I've started to look at the configuration file used by Glance and I >> >want to switch to one configuration file only. >> >I stumbled upon this blueprint: >> > >> > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/use-oslo-config >> > >> >> w.r.t using config.generator https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83327/ >> >> >which fits. >> > >> >Does not look like I can assign myself to it, but if someone can do so, >> >go ahead. >> > >> >So I've started to work on that, and I got it working. My only problem >> >right now, concerned the [paste_deploy] options that is provided by >> >Glance. I'd like to remove this section altogether, as it's not >> >possible to have it and have the same configuration file read by both >> >glance-api and glance-registry. >> >My idea is also to unify glance-api-paste.ini and >> >glance-registry-paste.ini into glance-paste.ini and then have each >> >server reads their default pipeline (pipeline:glance-api). >> > >> >Does that sounds reasonable to everyone? >> >> +1, it sounds like a good idea. I don't think we need to maintain 2 >> separate config files, especially now that the registry service is optional. >> >> Thanks for working on this. >> Flavio >> >> -- >> @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] Unifying configuration file
I agree with Erno. I think that the glance registry service being optional is a good argument for keeping its config separate rather than munging it into the API config. rosmaita From: Kuvaja, Erno [kuv...@hp.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:29 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file I do not like this idea. As now we are on 5 different config files (+ policy and schema). One for each (API and Registry) would still be ok, but putting all together would just become messy. If the *-paste.ini will be migrated to .conf files that would bring it down, but please do not try to mix reg and API configs together. - Erno (jokke) Kuvaja > -Original Message- > From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] > Sent: 17 June 2014 15:19 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file > > On 17/06/14 15:59 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: > >Hi guys, > > > >So I've started to look at the configuration file used by Glance and I > >want to switch to one configuration file only. > >I stumbled upon this blueprint: > > > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/use-oslo-config > > > > w.r.t using config.generator https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83327/ > > >which fits. > > > >Does not look like I can assign myself to it, but if someone can do so, > >go ahead. > > > >So I've started to work on that, and I got it working. My only problem > >right now, concerned the [paste_deploy] options that is provided by > >Glance. I'd like to remove this section altogether, as it's not > >possible to have it and have the same configuration file read by both > >glance-api and glance-registry. > >My idea is also to unify glance-api-paste.ini and > >glance-registry-paste.ini into glance-paste.ini and then have each > >server reads their default pipeline (pipeline:glance-api). > > > >Does that sounds reasonable to everyone? > > +1, it sounds like a good idea. I don't think we need to maintain 2 > separate config files, especially now that the registry service is optional. > > Thanks for working on this. > Flavio > > -- > @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] Unifying configuration file
I do not like this idea. As now we are on 5 different config files (+ policy and schema). One for each (API and Registry) would still be ok, but putting all together would just become messy. If the *-paste.ini will be migrated to .conf files that would bring it down, but please do not try to mix reg and API configs together. - Erno (jokke) Kuvaja > -Original Message- > From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] > Sent: 17 June 2014 15:19 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file > > On 17/06/14 15:59 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: > >Hi guys, > > > >So I've started to look at the configuration file used by Glance and I > >want to switch to one configuration file only. > >I stumbled upon this blueprint: > > > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/use-oslo-config > > > > w.r.t using config.generator https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83327/ > > >which fits. > > > >Does not look like I can assign myself to it, but if someone can do so, > >go ahead. > > > >So I've started to work on that, and I got it working. My only problem > >right now, concerned the [paste_deploy] options that is provided by > >Glance. I'd like to remove this section altogether, as it's not > >possible to have it and have the same configuration file read by both > >glance-api and glance-registry. > >My idea is also to unify glance-api-paste.ini and > >glance-registry-paste.ini into glance-paste.ini and then have each > >server reads their default pipeline (pipeline:glance-api). > > > >Does that sounds reasonable to everyone? > > +1, it sounds like a good idea. I don't think we need to maintain 2 > separate config files, especially now that the registry service is optional. > > Thanks for working on this. > Flavio > > -- > @flaper87 > Flavio Percoco ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file
On 17/06/14 15:59 +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: Hi guys, So I've started to look at the configuration file used by Glance and I want to switch to one configuration file only. I stumbled upon this blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/use-oslo-config w.r.t using config.generator https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83327/ which fits. Does not look like I can assign myself to it, but if someone can do so, go ahead. So I've started to work on that, and I got it working. My only problem right now, concerned the [paste_deploy] options that is provided by Glance. I'd like to remove this section altogether, as it's not possible to have it and have the same configuration file read by both glance-api and glance-registry. My idea is also to unify glance-api-paste.ini and glance-registry-paste.ini into glance-paste.ini and then have each server reads their default pipeline (pipeline:glance-api). Does that sounds reasonable to everyone? +1, it sounds like a good idea. I don't think we need to maintain 2 separate config files, especially now that the registry service is optional. Thanks for working on this. Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco pgpN86biMnyui.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [glance] Unifying configuration file
Hi guys, So I've started to look at the configuration file used by Glance and I want to switch to one configuration file only. I stumbled upon this blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/use-oslo-config which fits. Does not look like I can assign myself to it, but if someone can do so, go ahead. So I've started to work on that, and I got it working. My only problem right now, concerned the [paste_deploy] options that is provided by Glance. I'd like to remove this section altogether, as it's not possible to have it and have the same configuration file read by both glance-api and glance-registry. My idea is also to unify glance-api-paste.ini and glance-registry-paste.ini into glance-paste.ini and then have each server reads their default pipeline (pipeline:glance-api). Does that sounds reasonable to everyone? -- Julien Danjou -- Free Software hacker -- http://julien.danjou.info signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
