On 05/04/2016 11:49 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
Ok. Sure. More generically then. There are OpenStack compatible API
implementations existing in the world, deployed by a not insignificant number
of production clouds, that are currently outside the big tent that may have not
considered proposing joining the community because of the past history of
Python onlyness in the community. If we're considering Go, should we also be
considering C++? Go currently has no production level OpenStack code finished.
C++ does.
To be really clear, we are not considering alternate API
implementations. OpenStack is not and never has been an API standards
body. We are an Open Source project that ships code.
This is a case of the swift team themselves being interested in
replacing part of their implementation with go.
I expect that if someone came up and said "oh hai, I've written a C++
version of Nova and y'all should bring it in to the big tent", then my
response would be much less accommodating.
We do not need to consider whatever languages people might want to use.
We need to consider concrete things that our actual teams want to
actually do today.
We are not in the market for OpenStack compatible API implementations.
This is not us opening the door for those to all of a sudden be "ok"
________________________________________
From: Shinobu Kinjo [shinobu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 3:32 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go
- Could we kindly stop discussing radosgw at this moment?
+ Could we kindly stop discussing any particular application at this moment?
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Shinobu Kinjo <shinobu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Could we kindly stop discussing radosgw at this moment?
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote:
Fox, Kevin M wrote:
RadosGW has been excluded from joining the OpenStack community in part due
to its use of c++.
I'm not sure I'd use the word "excluded" since RadosGW was never actually
proposed. Maybe our past Python-centricity discouraged them to apply, but
that's conjecture.
Now that we're talking about alternate languages, that may be on the table
now?
It's been a possibility for the last 8 months.
That said, my personal view is that we should accept additional languages
when the current set of accepted languages is suboptimal for something we
want to write or create. A technical benefit to outweigh the community
fragmentation and increase in infrastructure tasks that result from adding
that language.
I'm less convinced that we should add a language for the sole benefit of
being able to absorb an existing project into OpenStack which happens to be
written in a specific language. Especially if the then-supported set of
languages could provide the same technical benefits.
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
__________________________________________________________________________
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
--
Email:
shin...@linux.com
shin...@redhat.com
--
Email:
shin...@linux.com
shin...@redhat.com
__________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
