On 01/16/2014 06:15 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Alexei Kornienko
<alexei.kornie...@gmail.com <mailto:alexei.kornie...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 01/16/2014 05:25 PM, Jesse Noller wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com
<mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Jesse Noller
<jesse.nol...@rackspace.com <mailto:jesse.nol...@rackspace.com>> wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 5:53 AM, Chmouel Boudjnah
<chmo...@enovance.com <mailto:chmo...@enovance.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Chris Jones <c...@tenshu.net
<mailto:c...@tenshu.net>> wrote:
Once a common library is in place, is there any intention
to (or resistance against) collapsing the clients into a
single project or even a single command (a la busybox)?
that's what openstackclient is here for
https://github.com/openstack/python-openstackclient
After speaking with people working on OSC and looking at the
code base in depth; I don't think this addresses what Chris is
implying: OSC wraps the individual CLIs built by each project
today, instead of the inverse: a common backend that the
individual CLIs can wrap - the latter is an important
distinction as currently, building a single binary install of
OSC for say, Windows is difficult given the dependency tree
incurred by each of the wrapped CLIs, difference in
dependencies, structure, etc.
Also, wrapping a series of inconsistent back end Client classes
/ functions / methods means that the layer that presents a
consistent user interface (OSC) to the user is made more
complex juggling names/renames/commands/etc.
In the inverted case of what we have today (single backend); as
a developer of user interfaces (CLIs, Applications, Web apps
(horizon)) you would be able to:
from openstack.common.api import Auth
from openstack.common.api import Compute
from openstack.common.util import cli_tools
my_cli = cli_tools.build(...)
def my_command(cli):
compute = Compute(Auth(cli.tentant..., connect=True))
compute.list_flavors()
This would mean that *even if the individual clients needed or
wanted to keep their specific CLIs, they would be able to use a
not "least common denominator" back end (each service can have
a rich common.api.compute.py <http://common.api.compute.py/> or
api.compute/client.py and extend where needed. However tools
like horizon / openstackclient can choose not to leverage the
"power user/operator/admin" components and present a simplified
user interface.
I'm working on a wiki page + blueprint to brainstorm how we
could accomplish this based off of what work is in flight today
(see doug's linked blueprint) and sussing out a layout / API
strawman for discussion.
Some of the additions that came out of this email threads and
others:
1. Common backend should provide / offer caching utilities
2. Auth retries need to be handled by the auth object, and each
sub-project delegates to the auth object to manage that.
3. Verified Mocks / Stubs / Fakes must be provided for proper
unit testing
I am happy to see this work being done, there is definitely a lot
of work to be done on the clients.
This blueprint sounds like its still being fleshed out, so I am
wondering what the value is of the current patches
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/common-client-library-2,n,z
Those patches mainly sync cliutils and apiutils from oslo into the
assorted clients. But if this blueprint is about the python API and
not the CLI (as that would be the openstack-pythonclient), why sync
in apiutils?
Also does this need to go through oslo-incubator or can this start
out as a library? Making this a library earlier on will reduce the
number of patches needed to get 20+ repositories to use this.
Alexei and others have at least started the first stage of a rollout
- the blueprint(s) needs additional work, planning and discussion,
but his work is a good first step (reduce the duplication of code)
although I am worried that the libraries and APIs / namespaces will
need to change if we continue these discussions which potentially
means re-doing work.
If we take a step back, a rollout process might be:
1: Solidify the libraries / layout / naming conventions (blueprint)
2: Solidify the APIs exposed to consumers (blueprint)
3: Pick up on the common-client-library-2 work which is primarily a
migration of common code into oslo today, into the structure defined
by 1 & 2
So, I sort of agree: moving / collapsing code now might be
premature. I do strongly agree it should stand on its own as a
library rather than an oslo incubator however. We should start with
a single, clean namespace / library rather than depending on oslo
directly.
Knowing usual openstack workflow I'm afraid that #1,#2 with a
waterfall approach may take years to be complete.
And after they'll be approved it will become clear that this
architecture is already outdated.
We try to use iterative approach for clients refactoring.
We started our work from removing code duplication because it already
gives a direct positive effect on client projects.
If you can show us better way of moving forward please help us by
uploading patches on this topic.
Talk is cheap. Show me the code. (c) Linus
I don't disagree and I'm pretty sure I and others have already thanked
you for starting this but have expressed concerns about the API /
layout - and many of the patches on that blueprint are still pending
review due to those concerns. I'm not suggesting we need to spend the
next six years designing it, I'm arguing for some basic design. From
the current blueprint it is unclear where things will live, where it
will live and how does it benefit everyone.
So I'd like to work *with* you to expand the blueprints to address
some basic design / namespacing / issues and not jump straight into
refactoring 22+ command line tools without a clear idea of the the
desired layout and design.
The problem with defining design is that I don't know a convenient way
of doing it cause UML, etherpad, blueprint's description are not
sufficient to do this clearly.
We try to use approach that I call "continuous refactoring" so as long
as something can be improved we improve it.
Our basic goal is to move towards SOLID principles and as long every new
commit brings us one step closer to them I consider that overall design
is improving.
I've already posted here a draft idea of what we would like to see in
the end:
1) Transport layer would handle all transport related stuff - HTTP, JSON
encoding, auth, caching, etc.
2) Model layer (Resource classes, BaseManager, etc.) will handle data
representation, validation
3) API layer will handle all project specific stuff - url mapping, etc.
(This will be imported to use client in other applications)
4) Cli level will handle all stuff related to cli mapping - argparse,
argcomplete, etc.
jesse
_______________________________________________
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
<mailto: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
