> > Hi, > At the moment private methods are used all over the place. Examples for > this are the address pairs and the security groups. If you do a grep of the > ML2 > plugin you will see these innocent private methods being used. > The end goal would be for us to have these as public methods. > Thanks > Gary >
OK, get it. But just wanted to know, what is the outcome from email discussion. Do we need to match changed/removed private methods with deprecation warning, or just modify and tell plugins: "deal with it" :) BR, Dariusz (dasm) Smigiel > > > > On 1/12/16, 11:52 AM, "Smigiel, Dariusz" <dariusz.smig...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >> On Jan 11, 2016, at 2:42 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Sean M. Collins <s...@coreitpro.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 07:50:47AM PST, Chris Dent wrote: > >> >>>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016, Gary Kotton wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The commit > >> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__github.com > >> >>>>> _openstack_neutron_commit_5d53dfb8d64186- > 2D&d=BQICAg&c=Sqcl0Ez6 > >> >>>>> M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt- > uEs&r=VlZxHpZBmzzkWT5jqz9JYBk8Y > >> >>>>> Teq9N3- > diTlNj4GyNc&m=JeGcqDfJO3uBpHFJtMpFdfKGvUvygEhoI7bztB14S9 > >> >>>>> w&s=6QRgfZxiJsf6Mgon-2G_2DUSuUWXKQED2HH38t_TGz8&e= > >> >>>>> b5b1d2f356fbff8f222e15d1b2 may break the decomposed plugins > >> >>>>> that make use of the method _get_tenant_id_for_create > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Just out of curiosity, is it not standard practice that a plugin > >> >>>> shouldn't use a private method? > >> >>> > >> >>> +1 - hopefully decomposed plugins will audit their code and look > >> >>> +for > >> >>> other calls to private methods. > >> >> > >> >> The fact that it broke *aas repos too suggests that we were not > >> >> showing a proper example to those decomposed. I think it can be > >> >> reasonable to restore the method until N, with a deprecation > >> >> message, as Garry suggested in his patch. Especially since there > >> >> is no actual burden to keep the method for another cycle. > >> > > >> > The neutron community has been really lax about enforcing private > >> methods. > >> > And while we should absolutely reverse that trend, likely we should > >> > give some warning. I agree with not going whole hog on that until N. > >> > > >> > I'd suggest putting in a debtcollector reference when putting the > >> > method > >> back. > >> > >> Done. https://review.openstack.org/265315 > > > > > >Do we have any consensus about treating private methods? Any general > tips about it, or every time should it be left for author decision? > > > >Should we use deprecation warning for all refactored private methods, > treating it as "API" and rewriting underneath code? > > > >Thanks, Dariusz (dasm) Smigiel > > __________________________________________________________________________ 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