On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:52:08AM +0530, Prasanna Santhanam wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:10:01AM +0530, Rohit Yadav wrote: > > > > > > If it does not cost much, let's introduce a new dependency for requesting > > stuff (get or post etc.) using "requests" [1] for both marvin and > > cloudmonkey. Vijay, you can write your own requester, as it's not much > > effort required to implement your own requester once you how signature is > > calculated. > > > > IMO, cloudstackConnection could be rewritten using latest ways and better > > libraries as it's not much code and is totally do-able with much less > > effort. A lot of flows for auth or non-auth are inter-dependent, the > > json->obj and obj->json parts and requesting logic is not straight forward > > (each method does *only* one thing). We need to make it generic by > > providing both raw and processed outputs, for example the result expects to > > return an obj and not json (maybe I need json and not an obj), one reason > > why I chose to write my own for cloudmonkey after I tried to reuse it. > > Lastly, host marvin on pypi so it's easier for any developer to get it off > > the shelf and start hacking some cool clients. > > > > Cheers. > > > > [1] http://docs.python-requests.org/en/latest/ > > > > > > Yeah - we should simplify cloudstackConnection and make it easily > exportable for both cloudmonkey,marvin and any other tools that might > require to make connections to CS mgmt. requests certainly looks > elegant. I'm trying to experiment with it to see if I can cook up > something for marvin. > > At one point I moved from httplib to urllib2 to overcome an annoying > BadStatusLine issue from httplib. I still find it hard to throttle > multiple tests through a single connection and urllib3 seems to handle > that. requests appears to be based on urllib3. So it would make sense > to move to it. > > The json decode,encode is not done within cloudstackConnection. That > part is annoying and I explored json and simplejson and there doesn't > seem to be an easy way to accomplish marvin's case. Esp. with nested > json objects I find it easier to use a recursive json decoder as in > jsonHelper. I've switched to simplejson and find that it performs > better for large jsons like our listXxx calls. jsonHelper right now > makes plain python objects which can be improved to make it a response > object as returned by the API. So a createPhysicalNetworkResponse > looks like the physicalNetworkResponse and not a plain python dict. >
I refactored the cloudstackconnection and pushed a wip branch requestsformarvin. Just need to iron out the POST data passing for cmds and the key signing. I think we can add the login mechanism based on session-based auth that the UI does with requests as well. That way we have a single module for all forms of auth done by CS. -- Prasanna.,
