Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Hi, > I suggest to move all needed Powershell scripts and etc. to the main repository 'murano' in the separate folder. +1 on this. The scripts will not go inside the PyPi package, they will be just grouped in a subfolder. Completely agree on the repo-reorganization topic in general. However > And I personally will do everything to prevent creation of new repo for Murano. Well, this may be unavoidable :) We may face a need to create a "murano-contrib" repository where Murano users will be able to contribute sources of their own murano packages, improve the core library etc. Given that we get rid of murano-conductor, murano-repository, murano-metadataclient, murano-common, murano-tests and, probably, murano-deployment, we are probably ok with having one more. Technically, we may reuse murano-repository for this. But this can be discussed right after there 0.5 release. -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Timur Nurlygayanov < tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Dmitry, > > I suggest to move all needed Powershell scripts and etc. to the main > repository 'murano' in the separate folder. > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Dmitry Teselkin > wrote: > >> Ruslan, >> >> What about murano-deployment repo? The most important part of it are >> PowerSheel scripts, Windows Image Builder, package manifests, and some >> other scripts that better to keep somewhere. Where do we plan to move them? >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Ruslan Kamaldinov < >> rkamaldi...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Joshua Harlow >>> wrote: >>> > Seeing that the following repos already exist, maybe there is some >>> need for >>> > cleanup? >>> > >>> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-agent >>> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api >>> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-common >>> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor >>> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-dashboard >>> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-deployment >>> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-docs >>> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-metadataclient >>> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-repository >>> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-tests >>> > ...(did I miss others?) >>> > >>> > Can we maybe not have more git repositories and instead figure out a >>> way to >>> > have 1 repository (perhaps with submodules?) ;-) >>> > >>> > It appears like murano is already exploding all over stackforge which >>> makes >>> > it hard to understand why yet another repo is needed. I understand why >>> from >>> > a code point of view, but it doesn't seem right from a code >>> organization >>> > point of view to continue adding repos. It seems like murano >>> > (https://github.com/stackforge/murano) should just have 1 repo, with >>> > sub-repos (tests, docs, api, agent...) for its own organizational usage >>> > instead of X repos that expose others to murano's internal >>> organizational >>> > details. >>> > >>> > -Josh >>> >>> >>> Joshua, >>> >>> I agree that this huge number of repositories is confusing for >>> newcomers. I've >>> spent some time to understand mission of each of these repos. That's why >>> we >>> already did the cleanup :) [0] >>> >>> And I personally will do everything to prevent creation of new repo for >>> Murano. >>> >>> Here is the list of repositories targeted for the next Murano release >>> (Apr 17): >>> * murano-api >>> * murano-agent >>> * python-muranoclient >>> * murano-dashboard >>> * murano-docs >>> >>> The rest of these repos will be deprecated right after the release. >>> Also we >>> will rename murano-api to just "murano". murano-api will include all the >>> Murano services, functionaltests for Tempest, Devstack scripts, >>> developer docs. >>> I guess we already can update README files in deprecated repos to avoid >>> further >>> confusion. >>> >>> I wouldn't agree that there should be just one repo. Almost every >>> OpenStack >>> project has it's own repo for python client. All the user docs are kept >>> in a >>> separate repo. Guest agent code should live in it's own repository to >>> keep >>> number of dependencies as low as possible. I'd say there should be >>> required/comfortable minimum of repositories per project. >>> >>> >>> And one more nit correction: >>> OpenStack has it's own git repository [1]. We shoul avoid referring to >>> github >>> since it's just a convinient mirror, while [1] is an official >>> OpenStack repository. >>> >>> [0] >>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/repository-reorganization >>> [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ruslan >>> >>> ___ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Dmitry Teselkin >> Deployment Engineer >> Mirantis >> http://www.mirantis.com >> >> ___
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Dmitry, I suggest to move all needed Powershell scripts and etc. to the main repository 'murano' in the separate folder. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Dmitry Teselkin wrote: > Ruslan, > > What about murano-deployment repo? The most important part of it are > PowerSheel scripts, Windows Image Builder, package manifests, and some > other scripts that better to keep somewhere. Where do we plan to move them? > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Ruslan Kamaldinov < > rkamaldi...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Joshua Harlow >> wrote: >> > Seeing that the following repos already exist, maybe there is some need >> for >> > cleanup? >> > >> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-agent >> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api >> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-common >> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor >> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-dashboard >> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-deployment >> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-docs >> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-metadataclient >> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-repository >> > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-tests >> > ...(did I miss others?) >> > >> > Can we maybe not have more git repositories and instead figure out a >> way to >> > have 1 repository (perhaps with submodules?) ;-) >> > >> > It appears like murano is already exploding all over stackforge which >> makes >> > it hard to understand why yet another repo is needed. I understand why >> from >> > a code point of view, but it doesn't seem right from a code organization >> > point of view to continue adding repos. It seems like murano >> > (https://github.com/stackforge/murano) should just have 1 repo, with >> > sub-repos (tests, docs, api, agent...) for its own organizational usage >> > instead of X repos that expose others to murano's internal >> organizational >> > details. >> > >> > -Josh >> >> >> Joshua, >> >> I agree that this huge number of repositories is confusing for newcomers. >> I've >> spent some time to understand mission of each of these repos. That's why >> we >> already did the cleanup :) [0] >> >> And I personally will do everything to prevent creation of new repo for >> Murano. >> >> Here is the list of repositories targeted for the next Murano release >> (Apr 17): >> * murano-api >> * murano-agent >> * python-muranoclient >> * murano-dashboard >> * murano-docs >> >> The rest of these repos will be deprecated right after the release. Also >> we >> will rename murano-api to just "murano". murano-api will include all the >> Murano services, functionaltests for Tempest, Devstack scripts, developer >> docs. >> I guess we already can update README files in deprecated repos to avoid >> further >> confusion. >> >> I wouldn't agree that there should be just one repo. Almost every >> OpenStack >> project has it's own repo for python client. All the user docs are kept >> in a >> separate repo. Guest agent code should live in it's own repository to keep >> number of dependencies as low as possible. I'd say there should be >> required/comfortable minimum of repositories per project. >> >> >> And one more nit correction: >> OpenStack has it's own git repository [1]. We shoul avoid referring to >> github >> since it's just a convinient mirror, while [1] is an official >> OpenStack repository. >> >> [0] >> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/repository-reorganization >> [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Ruslan >> >> ___ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > > -- > Thanks, > Dmitry Teselkin > Deployment Engineer > Mirantis > http://www.mirantis.com > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Ruslan, What about murano-deployment repo? The most important part of it are PowerSheel scripts, Windows Image Builder, package manifests, and some other scripts that better to keep somewhere. Where do we plan to move them? On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Ruslan Kamaldinov < rkamaldi...@mirantis.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Joshua Harlow > wrote: > > Seeing that the following repos already exist, maybe there is some need > for > > cleanup? > > > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-agent > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-common > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-dashboard > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-deployment > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-docs > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-metadataclient > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-repository > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-tests > > ...(did I miss others?) > > > > Can we maybe not have more git repositories and instead figure out a way > to > > have 1 repository (perhaps with submodules?) ;-) > > > > It appears like murano is already exploding all over stackforge which > makes > > it hard to understand why yet another repo is needed. I understand why > from > > a code point of view, but it doesn't seem right from a code organization > > point of view to continue adding repos. It seems like murano > > (https://github.com/stackforge/murano) should just have 1 repo, with > > sub-repos (tests, docs, api, agent...) for its own organizational usage > > instead of X repos that expose others to murano's internal organizational > > details. > > > > -Josh > > > Joshua, > > I agree that this huge number of repositories is confusing for newcomers. > I've > spent some time to understand mission of each of these repos. That's why we > already did the cleanup :) [0] > > And I personally will do everything to prevent creation of new repo for > Murano. > > Here is the list of repositories targeted for the next Murano release (Apr > 17): > * murano-api > * murano-agent > * python-muranoclient > * murano-dashboard > * murano-docs > > The rest of these repos will be deprecated right after the release. Also > we > will rename murano-api to just "murano". murano-api will include all the > Murano services, functionaltests for Tempest, Devstack scripts, developer > docs. > I guess we already can update README files in deprecated repos to avoid > further > confusion. > > I wouldn't agree that there should be just one repo. Almost every OpenStack > project has it's own repo for python client. All the user docs are kept in > a > separate repo. Guest agent code should live in it's own repository to keep > number of dependencies as low as possible. I'd say there should be > required/comfortable minimum of repositories per project. > > > And one more nit correction: > OpenStack has it's own git repository [1]. We shoul avoid referring to > github > since it's just a convinient mirror, while [1] is an official > OpenStack repository. > > [0] > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/repository-reorganization > [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ > > > > Thanks, > Ruslan > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Thanks, Dmitry Teselkin Deployment Engineer Mirantis http://www.mirantis.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Joshua, I was talking about simple python sub-package inside existing repository, in existing package. I am suggesting to add muranoapi.engine. sub-package, and nothing more. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Ruslan Kamaldinov < rkamaldi...@mirantis.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Joshua Harlow > wrote: > > Seeing that the following repos already exist, maybe there is some need > for > > cleanup? > > > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-agent > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-common > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-dashboard > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-deployment > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-docs > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-metadataclient > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-repository > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-tests > > ...(did I miss others?) > > > > Can we maybe not have more git repositories and instead figure out a way > to > > have 1 repository (perhaps with submodules?) ;-) > > > > It appears like murano is already exploding all over stackforge which > makes > > it hard to understand why yet another repo is needed. I understand why > from > > a code point of view, but it doesn't seem right from a code organization > > point of view to continue adding repos. It seems like murano > > (https://github.com/stackforge/murano) should just have 1 repo, with > > sub-repos (tests, docs, api, agent...) for its own organizational usage > > instead of X repos that expose others to murano's internal organizational > > details. > > > > -Josh > > > Joshua, > > I agree that this huge number of repositories is confusing for newcomers. > I've > spent some time to understand mission of each of these repos. That's why we > already did the cleanup :) [0] > > And I personally will do everything to prevent creation of new repo for > Murano. > > Here is the list of repositories targeted for the next Murano release (Apr > 17): > * murano-api > * murano-agent > * python-muranoclient > * murano-dashboard > * murano-docs > > The rest of these repos will be deprecated right after the release. Also > we > will rename murano-api to just "murano". murano-api will include all the > Murano services, functionaltests for Tempest, Devstack scripts, developer > docs. > I guess we already can update README files in deprecated repos to avoid > further > confusion. > > I wouldn't agree that there should be just one repo. Almost every OpenStack > project has it's own repo for python client. All the user docs are kept in > a > separate repo. Guest agent code should live in it's own repository to keep > number of dependencies as low as possible. I'd say there should be > required/comfortable minimum of repositories per project. > > > And one more nit correction: > OpenStack has it's own git repository [1]. We shoul avoid referring to > github > since it's just a convinient mirror, while [1] is an official > OpenStack repository. > > [0] > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/repository-reorganization > [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ > > > > Thanks, > Ruslan > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Seeing that the following repos already exist, maybe there is some need for > cleanup? > > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-agent > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-common > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-dashboard > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-deployment > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-docs > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-metadataclient > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-repository > - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-tests > ...(did I miss others?) > > Can we maybe not have more git repositories and instead figure out a way to > have 1 repository (perhaps with submodules?) ;-) > > It appears like murano is already exploding all over stackforge which makes > it hard to understand why yet another repo is needed. I understand why from > a code point of view, but it doesn't seem right from a code organization > point of view to continue adding repos. It seems like murano > (https://github.com/stackforge/murano) should just have 1 repo, with > sub-repos (tests, docs, api, agent...) for its own organizational usage > instead of X repos that expose others to murano's internal organizational > details. > > -Josh Joshua, I agree that this huge number of repositories is confusing for newcomers. I've spent some time to understand mission of each of these repos. That's why we already did the cleanup :) [0] And I personally will do everything to prevent creation of new repo for Murano. Here is the list of repositories targeted for the next Murano release (Apr 17): * murano-api * murano-agent * python-muranoclient * murano-dashboard * murano-docs The rest of these repos will be deprecated right after the release. Also we will rename murano-api to just "murano". murano-api will include all the Murano services, functionaltests for Tempest, Devstack scripts, developer docs. I guess we already can update README files in deprecated repos to avoid further confusion. I wouldn't agree that there should be just one repo. Almost every OpenStack project has it's own repo for python client. All the user docs are kept in a separate repo. Guest agent code should live in it's own repository to keep number of dependencies as low as possible. I'd say there should be required/comfortable minimum of repositories per project. And one more nit correction: OpenStack has it's own git repository [1]. We shoul avoid referring to github since it's just a convinient mirror, while [1] is an official OpenStack repository. [0] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/repository-reorganization [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/ Thanks, Ruslan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Seeing that the following repos already exist, maybe there is some need for cleanup? - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-agent - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-api - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-common - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-conductor - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-dashboard - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-deployment - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-docs - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-metadataclient - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-repository - https://github.com/stackforge/murano-tests …(did I miss others?) Can we maybe not have more git repositories and instead figure out a way to have 1 repository (perhaps with submodules?) ;-) It appears like murano is already exploding all over stackforge which makes it hard to understand why yet another repo is needed. I understand why from a code point of view, but it doesn't seem right from a code organization point of view to continue adding repos. It seems like murano (https://github.com/stackforge/murano) should just have 1 repo, with sub-repos (tests, docs, api, agent…) for its own organizational usage instead of X repos that expose others to murano's internal organizational details. -Josh From: Stan Lagun mailto:sla...@mirantis.com>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Date: Monday, March 24, 2014 at 3:27 AM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package I like dsl most because it is a. Short. This is especially good when you have that "awesome" 79-chars limitation b. It leaves a lot of room for changes. MuranoPL can change name. DSL - not :) On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Alexander Tivelkov mailto:ativel...@mirantis.com>> wrote: Hi Serg, Are you proposing to have a standalone git repository / stack forge project for that? Or just a separate package inside our primary murano repo? -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Serg Melikyan mailto:smelik...@mirantis.com>> wrote: Programming Language, AFAIK On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Gelbukh mailto:ogelb...@mirantis.com>> wrote: What does PL stand for, anyway? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Serg Melikyan mailto:smelik...@mirantis.com>> wrote: >because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano term 'language' mean Murano PL. +1 for language On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev mailto:tsuf...@mirantis.com>> wrote: +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov mailto:tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com>> wrote: > Hi Serg, > > This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not > just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on > 'MuranoPL') > > Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano > Engine? > > > Thank you! > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan > mailto:smelik...@mirantis.com>> > wrote: >> >> There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine >> specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated >> in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language >> core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an >> ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. >> >> Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? >> >> 1) muranoapi.engine.language; >> 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; >> 3) suggestions? >> >> -- >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com<mailto:smelik...@mirantis.com> >> >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 >> +7 (903) 156-0836 >> >> ___ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > > -- > > Timur, > QA Engineer > OpenStack Projects > Mirantis Inc > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensta
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
I like dsl most because it is a. Short. This is especially good when you have that "awesome" 79-chars limitation b. It leaves a lot of room for changes. MuranoPL can change name. DSL - not :) On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Alexander Tivelkov wrote: > Hi Serg, > > Are you proposing to have a standalone git repository / stack forge > project for that? Or just a separate package inside our primary murano repo? > > -- > Regards, > Alexander Tivelkov > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Serg Melikyan wrote: > >> Programming Language, AFAIK >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: >> >>> What does PL stand for, anyway? >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Oleg Gelbukh >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Serg Melikyan >>> wrote: >>> >because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano term 'language' mean Murano PL. +1 for language On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev wrote: > +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are > too broad. > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov > wrote: > > Hi Serg, > > > > This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name > 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not > > just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be > based on > > 'MuranoPL') > > > > Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for > Murano > > Engine? > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan < > smelik...@mirantis.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from > engine > >> specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are > separated > >> in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our > language > >> core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give > to us an > >> ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. > >> > >> Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? > >> > >> 1) muranoapi.engine.language; > >> 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; > >> 3) suggestions? > >> > >> -- > >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. > >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com > >> > >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 > >> +7 (903) 156-0836 > >> > >> ___ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Timur, > > QA Engineer > > OpenStack Projects > > Mirantis Inc > > > > ___ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > -- > Timur Sufiev > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com >> >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 >> +7 (903) 156-0836 >> >> ___ >> 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 > > -- Sincerely yours Stanislav (Stan) Lagun Senior Developer Mirantis 35b/3, Vorontsovskaya St. Moscow, Russia Skype: stanlagun www.mirantis.com sla...@mirantis.com ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Alexander, to have simple sub-package in muranoapi.engine/muranoapi On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Alexander Tivelkov wrote: > Hi Serg, > > Are you proposing to have a standalone git repository / stack forge > project for that? Or just a separate package inside our primary murano repo? > > -- > Regards, > Alexander Tivelkov > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Serg Melikyan wrote: > >> Programming Language, AFAIK >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: >> >>> What does PL stand for, anyway? >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Oleg Gelbukh >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Serg Melikyan >>> wrote: >>> >because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano term 'language' mean Murano PL. +1 for language On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev wrote: > +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are > too broad. > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov > wrote: > > Hi Serg, > > > > This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name > 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not > > just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be > based on > > 'MuranoPL') > > > > Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for > Murano > > Engine? > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan < > smelik...@mirantis.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from > engine > >> specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are > separated > >> in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our > language > >> core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give > to us an > >> ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. > >> > >> Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? > >> > >> 1) muranoapi.engine.language; > >> 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; > >> 3) suggestions? > >> > >> -- > >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. > >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com > >> > >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 > >> +7 (903) 156-0836 > >> > >> ___ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Timur, > > QA Engineer > > OpenStack Projects > > Mirantis Inc > > > > ___ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > -- > Timur Sufiev > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com >> >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 >> +7 (903) 156-0836 >> >> ___ >> 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 > > -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Hi Serg, Are you proposing to have a standalone git repository / stack forge project for that? Or just a separate package inside our primary murano repo? -- Regards, Alexander Tivelkov On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Serg Melikyan wrote: > Programming Language, AFAIK > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: > >> What does PL stand for, anyway? >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Oleg Gelbukh >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Serg Melikyan >> wrote: >> >>> >because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. >>> Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano >>> term 'language' mean Murano PL. >>> >>> +1 for language >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev wrote: >>> +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov wrote: > Hi Serg, > > This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not > just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on > 'MuranoPL') > > Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano > Engine? > > > Thank you! > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan < smelik...@mirantis.com> > wrote: >> >> There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine >> specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated >> in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language >> core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an >> ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. >> >> Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? >> >> 1) muranoapi.engine.language; >> 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; >> 3) suggestions? >> >> -- >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com >> >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 >> +7 (903) 156-0836 >> >> ___ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > > -- > > Timur, > QA Engineer > OpenStack Projects > Mirantis Inc > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Timur Sufiev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. >>> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com >>> >>> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 >>> +7 (903) 156-0836 >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. > http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com > > +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 > +7 (903) 156-0836 > > ___ > 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] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Programming Language, AFAIK On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: > What does PL stand for, anyway? > > -- > Best regards, > Oleg Gelbukh > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Serg Melikyan wrote: > >> >because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. >> Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano >> term 'language' mean Murano PL. >> >> +1 for language >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev wrote: >> >>> +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are >>> too broad. >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov >>> wrote: >>> > Hi Serg, >>> > >>> > This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' >>> (not >>> > just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be >>> based on >>> > 'MuranoPL') >>> > >>> > Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for >>> Murano >>> > Engine? >>> > >>> > >>> > Thank you! >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan >> > >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from >>> engine >>> >> specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are >>> separated >>> >> in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our >>> language >>> >> core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give >>> to us an >>> >> ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. >>> >> >>> >> Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? >>> >> >>> >> 1) muranoapi.engine.language; >>> >> 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; >>> >> 3) suggestions? >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. >>> >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com >>> >> >>> >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 >>> >> +7 (903) 156-0836 >>> >> >>> >> ___ >>> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> > Timur, >>> > QA Engineer >>> > OpenStack Projects >>> > Mirantis Inc >>> > >>> > ___ >>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Timur Sufiev >>> >>> ___ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com >> >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 >> +7 (903) 156-0836 >> >> ___ >> 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 > > -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
What does PL stand for, anyway? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Serg Melikyan wrote: > >because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. > Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano > term 'language' mean Murano PL. > > +1 for language > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev wrote: > >> +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too >> broad. >> >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov >> wrote: >> > Hi Serg, >> > >> > This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' >> (not >> > just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be >> based on >> > 'MuranoPL') >> > >> > Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for >> Murano >> > Engine? >> > >> > >> > Thank you! >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from >> engine >> >> specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are >> separated >> >> in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our >> language >> >> core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to >> us an >> >> ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. >> >> >> >> Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? >> >> >> >> 1) muranoapi.engine.language; >> >> 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; >> >> 3) suggestions? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. >> >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com >> >> >> >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 >> >> +7 (903) 156-0836 >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Timur, >> > QA Engineer >> > OpenStack Projects >> > Mirantis Inc >> > >> > ___ >> > OpenStack-dev mailing list >> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Timur Sufiev >> >> ___ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > > -- > Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. > http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com > > +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 > +7 (903) 156-0836 > > ___ > 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] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
>because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. Too broad in general, but we choose name for sub-package, and in murano term 'language' mean Murano PL. +1 for language On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Timur Sufiev wrote: > +1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too > broad. > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov > wrote: > > Hi Serg, > > > > This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' > (not > > just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based > on > > 'MuranoPL') > > > > Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for > Murano > > Engine? > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan > > wrote: > >> > >> There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine > >> specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are > separated > >> in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our > language > >> core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to > us an > >> ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. > >> > >> Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? > >> > >> 1) muranoapi.engine.language; > >> 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; > >> 3) suggestions? > >> > >> -- > >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. > >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com > >> > >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 > >> +7 (903) 156-0836 > >> > >> ___ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Timur, > > QA Engineer > > OpenStack Projects > > Mirantis Inc > > > > ___ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > -- > Timur Sufiev > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
+1 for muranoapi.engine.murano_pl, because 'dsl'/'language' terms are too broad. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov wrote: > Hi Serg, > > This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not > just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on > 'MuranoPL') > > Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano > Engine? > > > Thank you! > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan > wrote: >> >> There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine >> specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated >> in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language >> core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an >> ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. >> >> Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? >> >> 1) muranoapi.engine.language; >> 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; >> 3) suggestions? >> >> -- >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com >> >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 >> +7 (903) 156-0836 >> >> ___ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > > -- > > Timur, > QA Engineer > OpenStack Projects > Mirantis Inc > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Timur Sufiev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Timur, I don't know about plans to support different languages for Murano Engine. I think Murano PL may be valuable as standalone library, so I think we should extract Murano PL code to separate package, and if we will need it as a library it will be easy to extract to. On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov < tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hi Serg, > > This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' > (not just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be > based on 'MuranoPL') > > Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano > Engine? > > > Thank you! > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan wrote: > >> There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine >> specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated >> in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language >> core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us >> an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. >> >> Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? >> >> 1) muranoapi.engine.language; >> 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; >> 3) suggestions? >> >> -- >> Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. >> http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com >> >> +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 >> +7 (903) 156-0836 >> >> ___ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > > > -- > > Timur, > QA Engineer > OpenStack Projects > Mirantis Inc > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
Hi Serg, This idea sounds good, I suggest to use name 'murano.engine.murano_pl' (not just common name like 'language' or 'dsl', but name, which will be based on 'MuranoPL') Do we plan to support the ability to define different languages for Murano Engine? Thank you! On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Serg Melikyan wrote: > There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine > specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated > in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language > core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us > an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. > > Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? > > 1) muranoapi.engine.language; > 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; > 3) suggestions? > > -- > Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. > http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com > > +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 > +7 (903) 156-0836 > > ___ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Timur, QA Engineer OpenStack Projects Mirantis Inc ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] Separating our Murano PL core in own package
There is a idea to separate core of Murano PL implementation from engine specific code, like it was done in PoC. When this two things are separated in different packages, we will be able to track and maintain our language core as clean as possible from engine specific code. This will give to us an ability to easily separate our language implementation to a library. Questions is under what name we should place core of Murano PL? 1) muranoapi.engine.language; 2) muranoapi.engine.dsl; 3) suggestions? -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | smelik...@mirantis.com +7 (495) 640-4904, 0261 +7 (903) 156-0836 ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
