> On Oct 18, 2016, at 5:14 AM, Ian Cordasco <sigmaviru...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org <mailto:thie...@openstack.org>> > Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> > Date: October 18, 2016 at 03:55:41 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r > >> Doug Wiegley wrote: >>> [...] Paths forward: >>> >>> 1. Add gunicorn to global requirements. >>> >>> 2. Create a project specific “amphora-requirements.txt” file for the >>> service VM packages (this is actually my preference.) It has been >>> pointed out that this wouldn’t be kept up-to-date by the bot. We could >>> modify the bot to include it in some way, or do it manually, or with a >>> project specific job. >>> >>> 3. Split our service VM builds into another repo, to keep a clean >>> separation between API services and the backend. But, even this new >>> repo’s standlone requirements.txt file will have the g-r issue from #1. >>> >>> 4. Boot the backend out of OpenStack entirely. >> >> All those options sound valid to me, so the requirements team should >> pick what they are the most comfortable with. >> >> My 2c: yes g-r is mostly about runtime dependencies and ensuring >> co-installability. However it also includes test/build-time deps, and >> generally converging dependencies overall sounds like a valid goal. Is >> there any drawback in adding gunicorn to g-r (option 1) ? > > The drawback (in my mind) is that new projects might start using it giving > operators yet another thing to learn about when deploying a new component > (eventlet, gevent, gunicorn, ...). > > On the flip, what's the benefit of adding it to g-r?
The positive benefit is the same as Octavia’s use case: it provides an alternative for any non-frontline-api service to run a lightweight http/wsgi service as needed (service VMs, health monitor agents, etc). And something better than the built-in debug servers in most of the frameworks. On the proliferation point, it is certainly a risk, though I’ve personally heard pretty strong guidance that all main API services in our community should be trending towards pecan. Thanks, doug > > -- > Ian Cordasco > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > <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
