Hi Sebastian,
Nobody is forgetting this topic, especially me :) We're going to dedicate
an engineer to do some research on topic based on Ryan's comments and my
old pull request on Nailgun with Pecan. The only thing is that it's not
very high priority topic in our roadmap. Don't worry, I'm sure we
Hello all,
What is the current situation with choosing web framework? Was there any
progress in the topic? I would like to avoid forgetting about it.
2014-12-08 15:47 GMT+01:00 Ryan Petrello :
> Feel free to ask any questions you have in #pecanpy on IRC; I can answer
> a lot
> more quickly than
Feel free to ask any questions you have in #pecanpy on IRC; I can answer a lot
more quickly than researching docs, and if you have a special need, I can
usually accommodate with changes to Pecan (I've done so with several OpenStack
projects in the past).
On 12/08/14 02:10 PM, Nikolay Markov wrote:
> Yes, and it's been 4 days since last message in this thread and no
> objections, so it seems
> that Pecan in now our framework-of-choice for Nailgun and future
> apps/projects.
We still need some research to do about technical issues and how easy
we can move to Pecan. Thanks to Ryan, we now have
2014-12-04 14:01 GMT+01:00 Igor Kalnitsky :
> Ok, guys,
>
> It became obvious that most of us either vote for Pecan or abstain from
> voting.
>
Yes, and it's been 4 days since last message in this thread and no
objections, so it seems
that Pecan in now our framework-of-choice for Nailgun and futu
t;> 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
> &
d 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
>
___
>> 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 d
.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
Stack 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 p
I've left some comments/corrections in this document re: pecan and what is
supports.
On 12/03/14 07:58 PM, Nikolay Markov wrote:
> A month or two ago I started gathering differencies between Flask and
> Pecan, let's take a look at technical details. Maybe there are some
> things that are already f
ay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 7:32 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel][Nailgun] Web framework
On 12/03/2014 10:16 AM, Nikolay Markov wrote:
> It would be great to look at some obvious points where Pecan is better
> than
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
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
A month or two ago I started gathering differencies between Flask and
Pecan, let's take a look at technical details. Maybe there are some
things that are already fixed in current versions of Pecan, feel free
to comment.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QR7YphyfN64m-e9b5rKC_U8bMtx4zjfW943BfLTqTa
> 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 solu
On 12/03/2014 10:16 AM, Nikolay Markov wrote:
It would be great to look at some obvious points where Pecan is better
than Flask despite of the fact that it's used by the community. I
still don't see a single and I don't think the principle "jump from
the cliff if everyone does" works well in such
Being able to make some impact on Pecan is an advantage for sure. But there are
other aspects in choosing a web framework and I’d rather discuss them.
Let’s not think about what is used in other OpenStack projects for a moment and
discuss technical details.
> On 03 Dec 2014, at 15:53, Jay Pipes
It would be great to look at some obvious points where Pecan is better
than Flask despite of the fact that it's used by the community. I
still don't see a single and I don't think the principle "jump from
the cliff if everyone does" works well in such cases.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Jay Pip
On 12/03/2014 09:35 AM, Sebastian Kalinowski wrote:
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.
Yes, this. ++
-jay
___
Op
I don’t have an opinion for now but do have some thoughts instead.
We use Pecan in Ironic.
I could say that it’s pretty nice when one needs to make something simple but
requires some manual job to be done in more or less sophisticated cases.
On the other hand we have that the Pecan team is quire
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
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.
I wouldn't say our API is badly designed,
Yeah, didn't notice that. Honestly, I'd prefer both to be accessible as
instance attributes just like in [1] but it's more of taste I guess.
[1]
http://tornado.readthedocs.org/en/latest/web.html#tornado.web.RequestHandler.request
P.
On 12/03/2014 02:03 PM, Sebastian Kalinowski wrote:
2014-
2014-12-03 13:47 GMT+01:00 Igor Kalnitsky :
> > I don't like that Flask uses a global request object [3].
>
> Przemyslaw, actually Pecan does use global objects too. BTW, what's
> wrong with global objects? They are thread-safe in both Pecan and
> Flask.
>
To be fair, Pecan could also pass reques
> I don't like that Flask uses a global request object [3].
Przemyslaw, actually Pecan does use global objects too. BTW, what's
wrong with global objects? They are thread-safe in both Pecan and
Flask.
> IMHO documentation is better written, and described a lot of possibilities of
> modification
Additionaly to what Przemek wrote, also Pecan is released more often, IMHO
documentation is better written, and described a lot of possibilities of
modification, also as Lukasz wrote in previous thread that Pecan is used in
openstack.
So I'm also for Pecan
Best regards,
Kamil S.
On Wed, Dec 3,
The only useful paradigm to write in Flask is MethodView's for me [1]
because decorators seem hard to refactor for large projects. Please look
at adding URLs -- one has to additionally specify methods to match those
from the MethodView -- this is code duplication and looks ugly.
It seems thoug
Well, I think if the general direction is to make Fuel using OpenStack
tools and libraries as much as it's possible, that makes sense to use
Pecan. Otherwise I'd prefer to swap web.py with Flask.
Sincerely yours,
Ivan Kliuk
On 12/2/14 16:55, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
Hi, Sebastian,
Thank you for
We had used Flask in the fuel-stats. It was easy and pleasant and all
project requirements was satisfied. And I saw difficulties and workarounds
with Pecan, when Nick integrated it into Nailgun.
So +1 for Flask.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Nikolay Markov
wrote:
> Michael, we already solved
Michael, we already solved all issues I described, and I just don't
want to solve them once again after moving to another framework. Also,
I think, nothing of these wishes contradicts with good API design.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Michael Krotscheck
wrote:
> This sounds more like you need
This sounds more like you need to pay off technical debt and clean up your
API.
Michael
On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 10:58:43 AM Nikolay Markov
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I actually tried to use Pecan and even created a couple of PoCs, but
> there due to historical reasons of how our API is organized it
Hello all,
I actually tried to use Pecan and even created a couple of PoCs, but
there due to historical reasons of how our API is organized it will
take much more time to implement all workarounds we need to issues
Pecan doesn't solve out of the box, like working with non-RESTful
URLs, reverse URL
On 12/02/2014 09:55 AM, Igor Kalnitsky wrote:
> Hi, Sebastian,
>
> Thank you for raising this topic again.
>
> [snip]
>
> Personally, I'd like to use Flask instead of Pecan, because first one
> is more production-ready tool and I like its design. But I believe
> this should be resolved by voting
For what it's worth in terms of "production-ready", pecan is mostly just webob
under the hood, and has been used pretty extensively at DreamHost in
high-traffic environments (we use pecan to handle *all* customer signups for
our entire product line at DreamHost). Not to mention the other major
Ope
Hi, Sebastian,
Thank you for raising this topic again.
Yes, indeed, we need to move out from web.py as soon as possible and
there are a lot of reasons why we should do it. But this topic is not
about "Why", this topic is about "Flask or Pecan".
Well, currently Fuel uses both of this frameworks:
Hi all,
Some time ago we had a discussion about moving Nailgun to new web framework
[1].
There was comparison [2] of two possible options: Pecan [3] and Flask [4].
We came to conclusion that we need to move Nailgun on some alive web
framework
instead of web.py [5] (some of the reasons: [6]) but t
37 matches
Mail list logo
