nstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Lazy import of modules
>
> All,
>
> To be clear, I wasn't stating that the LazyPluggable class and
> solution in Nova isn't good. Just that. *right now*, a few weeks
> before Bexar release, the best place to put thi
Thanks phone, that was a yup to separate repository generally. Small
libraries could sneak in but usually best to separate repo in my opinion.
On Jan 14, 2011 10:05 AM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM, John Purrier wrote:
>> Another thought, as we envision moving OpenStack f
Yup.
On Jan 14, 2011 10:05 AM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM, John Purrier wrote:
>> Another thought, as we envision moving OpenStack forward we will likely
be including code and projects that are not written in Python. Being forward
looking should we structure openstack-c
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:28 AM, John Purrier wrote:
> Another thought, as we envision moving OpenStack forward we will likely be
> including code and projects that are not written in Python. Being forward
> looking should we structure openstack-common to segment along language lines?
That was
t;
>> > On Jan 13, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
>> >
>> >> I can understand that the Swift guys don't want to destabilize their
>> >> codebase, but Glance and Nova should have some common items, no? Lazy
>> >> loading, logging, and I
t;
>> > On Jan 13, 2011, at 3:07 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
>> >
>> >> I can understand that the Swift guys don't want to destabilize their
>> >> codebase, but Glance and Nova should have some common items, no? Lazy
>> >> loading, logging, and I
stand that the Swift guys don't want to destabilize their
> >> codebase, but Glance and Nova should have some common items, no? Lazy
> >> loading, logging, and I18N support all spring to mind as likely to be
> >> common across Glance and Nova.
> >>
> &g
; Ewan.
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: 13 January 2011 11:50
> >>> To: Ewan Mellor
> >>> Cc: Todd Willey; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> >>> Su
>> Ewan.
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 13 January 2011 11:50
>>> To: Ewan Mellor
>>> Cc: Todd Willey; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Lazy import
;> From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 13 January 2011 11:50
>> To: Ewan Mellor
>> Cc: Todd Willey; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Lazy import of modules
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Ewan Mellor
>> wrote:
: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 13 January 2011 11:50
> To: Ewan Mellor
> Cc: Todd Willey; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Lazy import of modules
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Ewan Mellor
> wrote:
> > At the risk of startin
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
> At the risk of starting to shave yaks: do we want to have an openstack-common
> then? It seems to be DOA at the moment.
There's little to no agreement on common principles and code between
the projects, unfortunately. It would be best, IMHO,
d.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Lazy import of modules
>
> I ported an import behavior to openstack-common's pluggable.py, and
> there is some blueprint information at
> http://wiki.openstack.org/blueprint-flagged-module-loading.
>
> It doesn't raise it's own
I've heard people complain that we have lots of ways of doing lazy import of
modules (i.e. loading them on demand, so that you don't need the dependency
unless you're actually using the functionality) and that we should standardize
on one.
So, which one should we standardize on?
To kick the co
14 matches
Mail list logo
