Some comments inline, Salvatore
On 21 May 2014 15:23, Mandeep Dhami <dh...@noironetworks.com> wrote: > Hi Sean: > > While the APIs might not be changing*, I suspect that there are > significant design decisions being made**. These changes are probably more > significant than any new feature being discussed. As a community, are we > expected to document these design changes and review these changes as well? > I am still trying to figure out what Neutron's review standards are. On one > hand, I am seeing code review comments that reject a patch for cosmetic > changes (like a name change from what was in the reviewed blueprint), to > having an attitude that something as core and central to neutron as > refactoring and a major API update to v3 not needing a design > document/review. > This is a bit obscure to me. I read it as you're hinting the core team or part of it has double standards. In that case I would invite you to clarify. > > It is my opinion, and my recommendation, that the proposed changes be > documented and reviewed by same standard that we have for other features. > As for any other change requiring a blueprint, they will obviously be submitted to neutron-specs and reviewed; as long as they're not there, they do not exist. > > * I believe that v3 API is being introduced and chnages are being made, > but I might have mis-understood. > I am not entirely sure what kind of v3 APIs you're referring to. I think no changes to existing subnet/router/floating IPs APIs and object models have been proposed so far. Anyway, I was not at the summit either, so my information might not be accurate. ** I was under the impression that in addition to the Pecan updates, there > was going to be refactoring to use taskflow as well. And that I expect to > have significant control flow impact, and that is what I really wanted to > review. > I don't see a mandatory relationship between pecan and taskflow. There was a session discussing the possibility of having a task based interaction between the front end and the backend - taskflow would be a candidate task manager solution there. But from what I gathered this was orthogonal to the Pecan effort, which is merely a replacement of the home-grown wsgi framework neutron is running today. > > > Regards, > mandeep > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Collins, Sean < > sean_colli...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 05:18:57PM EDT, Mandeep Dhami wrote: >> > Renewing the thread, is there a blueprint for this refactoring effort? >> > >> > In the email thread till now, we have just had an etherpad link. I would >> > like to get more deeply involved in design/implementation and review of >> > these changes and I get a feeling that not being able to attend the >> Atlanta >> > summit is going to be a significant barrier to participation in this >> > critical effort. >> >> >> It is possible there is a misconception here: refactoring the API core >> does >> not mean changing the APIs that are presented to the user. We are in the >> process of replacing a homegrown WSGI with Pecan to make the WSGI layer >> of Neutron cleaner and easier to create API extensions. >> >> http://pecan.readthedocs.org/en/latest/index.html >> >> -- >> Sean M. Collins >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
