On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Jaume Devesa <devv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 > > I think it is good compromise. Thanks Ryu! > > I understand the CLI will belong to the external part. I much prefer to > have > it in a separate project rather than into the plugin. Even if the code is > tiny. > Let me summarize it: python-midonetclient: Low level API that lives and breathes in midonet/midonet. Has the current cli. python-os-midonetclient: High level API that is in openstack/python-midonetclient (can be packaged with a different name). Are you asking for python-os-midonetclient not to include the cli tool? I would prefer to keep with the OpenStack practice [1] of having it together. I don't think developing a python cli client for the new python-os-midonetclient that is on par with the neutron cli tool would be that big of a task and I think it would make operation nicer. It could even find the midonet-api from the zookeeper registry like the other tools do. [1] https://github.com/openstack/python-neutronclient/blob/master/setup.cfg > > If you will want to just do midonet calls for debugging or check the > MidoNet > virtual infrastructure, it will be cleaner to install it without > dependencies than > dragging the whole neutron project (networking-midonet depends on neutron). > > Regards, > > On 14 December 2015 at 17:32, Ryu Ishimoto <r...@midokura.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Sandro Mathys <san...@midokura.com> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Ryu Ishimoto <r...@midokura.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > So if I understand you correctly, you suggest: >> > 1) the (midonet/internal) low level API stays where it is and will >> > still be called python-midonetclient. >> > 2) the (neutron/external) high level API is moved into it's own >> > project and will be called something like python-os-midonetclient. >> > >> > Sounds like a good compromise which addresses the most important >> > points, thanks Ryu! I wasn't aware that these parts of the >> > python-midonetclient are so clearly distinguishable/separable but if >> > so, this makes perfect sense. Not perfectly happy with the naming, but >> > I figure it's the way to go. >> >> Thanks for the endorsement. Yes, it is trivial to separate them (less >> than a day of work) because they are pretty much already separated. >> >> As for the naming, I think it's better to take a non-disruptive >> approach so that it's transparent to those currently developing the >> low level midonet client. To your question, however, I have another >> suggestion, which is that for the high level client code, it may also >> make sense to just include that as part of the plugin. It's such >> small code that it might not make sense to separate, and also likely >> to be used only by the plugin in the future. Which basically means >> that the plugin need not depend on any python client library at all. >> I think this will simplify even further. It should also be ok to be >> tied to the plugin release cycles as well assuming that's the only >> place the client is needed. >> >> Cheers, >> Ryu >> >> >> >> > >> > -- Sandro >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > > -- > Jaume Devesa > Software Engineer at Midokura > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev