Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2016-06-21 08:00:50 -0400: > On 06/21/2016 07:39 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > On 06/21/2016 05:43 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote: > >> Le 21/06/2016 10:04, Chris Dent a écrit : > >>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Jay Pipes wrote: > >>> > >>>> Flask seems to be the most widely used and known WSGI framework so > >>>> for consistency's sake, I'm recommending we just use it and not rock > >>>> this boat. There are more important things to get hung up on than > >>>> this battle right now. > >>> > >>> That seems perfectly reasonable. My main goal in starting the > >>> discussion was to ensure that we reach some kind of consensus, > >>> whatever it might be[1]. It won't be too much of an ordeal to > >>> turn the existing pure WSGI stuff into Flask stuff. > >>> > >>> From my standpoint doing the initial development in straight WSGI > >>> was a win as it allowed for a lot of clarity from the inside out. > >>> Now that that development has shown the shape of the API we can > >>> do what we need to do to make it clear from outside in. > >>> > >>> Next question: There's some support for not using Paste and > >>> paste.ini. Is anyone opposed to that? > >>> > >> > >> Given Flask is not something we support yet in Nova, could we discuss on > >> that during either a Nova meeting, or maybe wait for the midcycle ? > > > > I really don't want to wait for the mid-cycle. Happy to discuss in the > > Nova meeting, but my preference is to have Chris just modify his patch > > series to use Flask now and review it. > > > >> To be honest, Chris and you were saying that you don't like Flask, and > >> I'm a bit agreeing with you. Why now it's a good possibility ? > > > > Because Doug persuaded me that the benefits of being consistent with > > what the community is using outweigh my (and Chris') personal misgivings > > about the particular framework. > > Just to be clear.... > > http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=Flask%3E%3D0.10&i=nope&files=&repos= > > Flask is used by 2 (relatively new) projects in OpenStack > > If we look at the iaas base layer: > > Keystone - custom WSGI with Routes / Paste > Glance - WSME + Routes / Paste > Cinder - custom WSGI with Routes / Paste > Neutron - pecan + Routes / Paste > Nova - custom WSGI with Routes / Paste >
When I see "custom WSGI" I have a few thoughts: * custom == special snowflake. But REST API's aren't exactly novel. * If using a framework means not writing or cargo culting any custom WSGI code, that seems like a win for maintainability from the get go. * If using a framework means handling errors more consistently, that seems like a win for operators. * I don't have a grasp on how much custom WSGI code is actually involved. That would help us all evaluate the meaning of the statements above (both yours, and mine). __________________________________________________________________________ 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
