Hi all, At around the time Barbican was applying for incubation there was a discussion about "supported" WSGI frameworks. From memory the decision at the time was that Pecan was to be the only supported framework and that for incubation Barbican had to convert to Pecan (from Falcon).
Keystone is looking to ditch our crusty old, home-grown wsgi layer for an external framework and both Pecan and Falcon are in global requirements. In the experimenting I've done Pecan provides a lot of stuff we don't need and some that just gets in the way. To call out a few: * the rendering engine really doesn't make sense for us, for APIs, and where we are often returning different data (not just different views or data) based on Content-Type. * The security enforcement within Pecan does not really mesh with how we enforce policy, nor does the way we build controller objects per resource. It seems we will have to build this for ourselves on top of pecan and there are just various other niggles. THIS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO START A DEBATE ON THE VIRTUES OF EACH FRAMEWORK. Everything I've found can be dealt with and pecan will be a vast improvement over what we use now. I have also not written a POC with Falcon to know that it will suit any better. My question is: Does the ruling that Pecan is the only WSGI framework for OpenStack stand? I don't want to have 100s of frameworks in the global requirements, but given falcon is already there iff a POC determines that Falcon is a better fit for keystone can we use it? Thanks, Jamie __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
