Done:
https://launchpad.net/openstack-common
Rick, feel free to change the branding to the openstack images, etc...
-jay
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Rick Clark wrote:
> +1 This is the only reasonable thing to do.
>
>
> On 08/30/2010 09:41 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> OK, so is everyone cool w
+1 This is the only reasonable thing to do.
On 08/30/2010 09:41 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> OK, so is everyone cool with me creating a new project called
> openstack-common under the openstack umbrella? This project would be
> specifically for *Python* common library and utilities.
>
> We got a litt
OK, so is everyone cool with me creating a new project called
openstack-common under the openstack umbrella? This project would be
specifically for *Python* common library and utilities.
We got a little off-track with discussing bindings (it's a great
topic, but not necessarily related to a commo
Okay, I guess I'll just wait for things to start becoming more concrete and
then maybe I'll see what you're getting at. If we call one a language-binding
framework and the other a language binding, it's all the same to me. :)
On Aug 28, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Jorge Williams wrote:
>
> Okay, I think
Okay, I think we're sorta talking about the same thing. The part of the code
that handles the boiler-plate stuff (what you call the low-level binding) I see
as being the language-binding framework. The language binding that we share
with customers is written on top of that. We can certainly
On Aug 28, 2010, at 12:29 PM, Jorge Williams wrote:
> I strongly disagree with the idea of us maintaining multiple same-language
> bindings for a single service. This is going lead to confusion and additional
> work.
I guess we'll have to agree to strongly disagree. :)
In my mind, one would w
On Aug 28, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Gregory Holt wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Jorge Williams wrote:
>
>> I see standardization as being extremely beneficial. Having a common
>> language framework is one example of how standardization can help us, but
>> it's important to also think of thi
On Aug 28, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Jorge Williams wrote:
> I see standardization as being extremely beneficial. Having a common
> language framework is one example of how standardization can help us, but
> it's important to also think of this from the perspective of our clients --
> why should they
On Aug 28, 2010, at 10:21 AM, Michael Barton wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Jorge Williams
mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com>> wrote:
Sure,
We're aiming for consistency with our public APIs so that:
1) Collections are handled consistently
a) Pagination works the same across A
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Jorge Williams <
jorge.willi...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> Sure,
>
> We're aiming for consistency with our public APIs so that:
>
> 1) Collections are handled consistently
> a) Pagination works the same across APIs
> b) Filtering works the same way across
On Aug 26, 2010, at 4:31 PM, Erik Carlin wrote:
Jorge, I know you have some ideas about a binding "framework" that could be
used to build bindings in a common manner. Could you please share your
ideas with the group?
Sure,
We're aiming for consistency with our public APIs so that:
1) Collect
On 08/27/2010 08:00 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Erik Carlin
> wrote:
>> I love the idea of reusable libraries across OpenStack projects. That does
>> imply a common language, which may not always be the case, but it does
>> provide some dedup.
>
> Yep, agreed.
>
>>
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Erik Carlin wrote:
> I love the idea of reusable libraries across OpenStack projects. That does
> imply a common language, which may not always be the case, but it does
> provide some dedup.
Yep, agreed.
> I do think each service should have language bindings.
To be clear, I certainly wasn't proposing this for the Nova Austin
release. I was just brainstorming for the future. I was proposing
this as a separate Launchpad project, and there's no reason work
couldn't be going on in this openstack-common project at the same time
as work on Austin...it was j
I think openstack-common is a great idea also, but should we consider
blueprinting it for discussion in San Antonio at the next openstack summit in
November? It'll back-burner the thing and people will be able to mull over what
makes sense to pull out and make common.
-Chris
On Aug 26, 2010,
I openstack-common is a great idea. I would suggest that it goes in the
post-austin release of nova. Integrating the different openstack components
into a common system seems important, but I think we should solidify the 1.0
release of nova before focusing on integration.
Vish
On Thu, Aug 26, 2
I love the idea of reusable libraries across OpenStack projects. That does
imply a common language, which may not always be the case, but it does
provide some dedup.
I do think each service should have language bindings. We have debated the
idea of a single set of language bindings across servic
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:04:01 -0400
Jay Pipes wrote:
> My proposal is to create another project on Launchpad called
> openstack-common that will contain a Python library that standardizes
> and consolidates all the above-mentioned overlap and makes an
> easy-to-use, well-documented library of comm
Hey all,
So, I've noticed that there are a lot of similar code in the Nova and
Swift (and I presume Glance as well...) that is redundant in its
purpose.
Examples of redundant code include:
Configuration file and options processing
=
In Nova, gflags is used for CL
19 matches
Mail list logo
