I never used Flask and Pecan personally so I can only rely from what I saw in this thread and in both projects docs. I don't have strong opinion, just want to share some thoughts.
I think that as a part of OpenStack community we should stick with Pecan and because of the same reason we can have a bigger impact how future versions of Pecan will look. If we will choose Flask I see is that we not only need to choose a framework, but also decide which extension will be used to provide REST support (I do not like that we just assume "flask-restful will be used"). To be honest right now I'm more convinced that we should choose Pecan. 2014-12-03 14:22 GMT+01:00 Nikolay Markov <nmar...@mirantis.com>: > Dear colleagues, > > We surely may take into account the beauty of the code in both cases > (as for me, Pecan loses here, too) and argue about global objects and > stuff, but I'm trying to look at amount of men and time we need to > move to one of these frameworks. > Agree that we should look on the man-hours for implementation, but I think that it is as important as all the small things like global object etc. since they could make future development painful or pleasant. > I wouldn't say our API is badly designed, nevertheless Pecan still has > a lot of issues needed to be fixed by hand. We don't want to spend > much time to this task, because it is mostly the matter of convenience > and simplicity for developers, it changes nothing in features or > customer-facing behavior. > > And if we take in account the amount of hours we need to move, based > on my experience Flask definitely wins here. > Cannot we reuse the PoC ([1]) with Pecan that was created? There was a lot of work put into that piece of code. [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99069/6
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
