I’d rather suggest doing in several iteration by replacing several resources by Pecan’s implementations. Doing that in one big patch-set will make reviewing very painful, so some bad things might be not noticed.
> On 04 Dec 2014, at 14:01, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnit...@mirantis.com> wrote: > > Ok, guys, > > It became obvious that most of us either vote for Pecan or abstain from > voting. > > So I propose to stop fighting this battle (Flask vs Pecan) and start > thinking about moving to Pecan. You know, there are many questions > that need to be discussed (such as 'should we change API version' or > 'should be it done iteratively or as one patchset'). > > - Igor > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov> wrote: >> Choosing the right instrument for the job in an open source community >> involves choosing technologies that the community is familiar/comfortable >> with as well, as it will allow you access to a greater pool of developers. >> >> With that in mind then, I'd add: >> Pro Pecan, blessed by the OpenStack community, con Flask, not. >> >> Kevin >> ________________________________________ >> From: Nikolay Markov [nmar...@mirantis.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 9:00 AM >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Nailgun] Web framework >> >> I didn't participate in that discussion, but here are topics on Flask >> cons from your link. I added some comments. >> >> - Cons >> - db transactions a little trickier to manage, but possible # >> what is trickier? Flask uses pure SQLalchemy or a very thin wrapper >> - JSON built-in but not XML # the only one I agree with, but does >> Pecan have it? >> - some issues, not updated in a while # last commit was 3 days ago >> - No Python 3 support # full Python 3 support fro a year or so already >> - Not WebOb # can it even be considered as a con? >> >> I'm not trying to argue with you or community principles, I'm just >> trying to choose the right instrument for the job. >> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 12/03/2014 10:53 AM, Nikolay Markov wrote: >>>>> >>>>> However, the OpenStack community is also about a shared set of tools, >>>>> development methodologies, and common perspectives. >>>> >>>> >>>> I completely agree with you, Jay, but the same principle may be >>>> applied much wider. Why Openstack Community decided to use its own >>>> unstable project instead of existing solution, which is widely used in >>>> Python community? To avoid being a team player? Or, at least, why it's >>>> recommended way even if it doesn't provide the same features other >>>> frameworks have for a long time already? I mean, there is no doubt >>>> everyone would use stable and technically advanced tool, but imposing >>>> everyone to use it by force with a simple hope that it'll become >>>> better from this is usually a bad approach. >>> >>> >>> This conversation was had a long time ago, was thoroughly thought-out and >>> discussed at prior summits and the ML: >>> >>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/grizzly-common-wsgi-frameworks >>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/havana-common-wsgi >>> >>> I think it's unfair to suggest that the OpenStack community decided "to use >>> its own unstable project instead of existing solution". >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> -jay >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Nick Markov >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
