19:00:28 #startmeeting python-openstacksdk 19:00:30 Meeting started Tue May 20 19:00:28 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is briancurtin. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:32 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 19:00:35 The meeting name has been set to 'python_openstacksdk' 19:01:15 If anyone's around for the sdk meeting, i threw together a small agenda, mostly just making sure to cover the outstanding reviews in teh way: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/PythonOpenStackSDK#Agenda_for_2014-05-20_1900_UTC 19:01:27 and if you're here, roll call 19:01:30 Brian Curtin, Rackspace 19:03:13 antihistamine-soaked Dean Troyer, Nebula 19:05:10 Jamie Lennox, Red Hat 19:05:39 it's really quiet, right? it isn't that I just can't see the text? ok, good, I see jamie 19:05:51 Alex Gaynor, Rackspace 19:06:17 i'm guessing it'll be quiet as people probably catch up from last week, so maybe a quick meeting 19:06:32 dtroyer: your message was the first thing i saw - i only assume we're doing the roll call from that 19:06:38 yes 19:06:55 I'm full of allergy drugs so a little slow today 19:07:05 may as well get started 19:07:07 Thanks to everyone who came out to the session at the summit; it felt super productive and nice to sync with folks in person 19:07:48 not really anything to discuss on this point, but i noticed coverage is broken, and we need a yet-to-be-released pbr to get it working 19:08:00 Was that always broken? 19:08:02 (or you can change the name in setup.cfg to be "openstack" if you need) 19:08:14 Alex_Gaynor: i'm guessing it was, i only tried to run it last week or the week before 19:08:19 k 19:08:52 pbr did some magic where if the name starts with python-, it strips that off and uses it, but our package is called openstack instead of openstacksdk, so it was testing nothing and collecting nothing 19:08:54 anyway 19:09:26 there's an open review for example code which depends on the presentation layer, but it just needs to be rebased. seems probably uncontroversial: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/91448/ 19:09:41 what it depends on, though, could use some love: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90538/ 19:10:52 is there a decision on that either way? I don't know if we need presentation but what's the plan for right now? 19:11:04 sigh…I don't care for the presentation layer, and if it would ever stop screwing around with Transport I could ignore it… 19:12:11 i'd like to get passed this point - is the best way to +2 or -2 the presentation? 19:12:59 I just renewed my −1, but if that still doesn't get the point across I'm willing to be forceful about it 19:13:41 I have very little opinion about the presentation stuff; I'll hapilly defer to folks who feel they are blocked on it 19:14:17 ok, given that from dtroyer i'm going to ignore it for now and if it ever passes it can be hacked in 19:14:32 Sounsd good :-) 19:15:08 with that being said, moving onto the auth change https://review.openstack.org/#/c/91889/ 19:15:21 terry isn't here, but i know he had more work to do there, so i dont believe it's review ready 19:15:38 that is also my understanding 19:15:38 I have another patch on that, I'm almost ready to update 19:15:41 he made a pass to address some of the early concerns, but still a TODO 19:15:45 oh, there he is - cool 19:15:52 sorry I'm late 19:15:57 no prob 19:17:16 and now that he's here, terrylhowe: not sure if you saw, but we just talked about the presentation layer change. it seems like it's probably going to sit for now 19:17:58 I'll look at the logs I guess 19:19:06 The biggest advantage of it is it cleaned up the resource class 19:19:39 quick summary - dean doesn't want it to muck with Transport, jamie wants to move on +2/-2 either way, alex deferred, i'm more with alex/jamie 19:20:19 (my +2 was that i'm somewhat fine with the change, strong on moving forward) 19:23:51 so i guess other than that, and whenever the updated auth change comes in - anything else at the moment to discuss? 19:24:32 I'm a little confused on Dean's comment on JSON support being removed from transport since it is in there still 19:24:58 Not sure if he realized I uploaded a new patch 19:26:06 dtroyer^ 19:27:10 moving it from Transport to PResentation now adds another requirement/dependency for Transport that I don't see any gain for. 19:27:33 How about I just put the decode code into transport as well? 19:27:43 I prefer to balance the JSON encoding/decoding in Trnasport as half of it is already in Requests 19:28:45 Fine, I just don't like it split over transport and resource 19:29:13 I don't see the split. Right now Transport does both JSON encoding and decoding. 19:29:16 what am I missing? 19:29:42 everything the resource class does 19:30:05 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90538/6/openstack/resource.py 19:32:27 there is certainly noting to prevent there being another encoding/decoding layer higher up in the stack…the actual duplication would be small if they both use the same lib. But I need it for things that are not resource-based. 19:33:18 right, I moved the json encoding and decoding in transport 19:33:59 how about this: don't change transport.py and I'll be able to let the rest go. 19:34:54 Conceptually, something called Presentation should not be a dependency of something called Transport. It's upside down 19:36:42 okay 19:41:14 question: was looking at Resource.list and potentially making it a generator rather than list/marker (jamie's comment) - however, is there any general purpose way to do that? for example, swift's marker is a string container name, but i've seen others that are IDs 19:41:37 er, limit/marker, not list/marker 19:42:45 container name is pretty much an id 19:42:59 so i don't even remember what's currently in resource - if you want to switch it out then do it 19:43:12 i had thought previously as to whether we could almost cache on a list call 19:43:28 so return an object that was a generator that stored everything and could essentially be scrolled through 19:43:50 yep, i'll look further into that (i love generators, so the comment stuck out) 19:44:14 sounds good to me 19:44:53 anything else to cover with these last 15 minutes? 19:45:20 there has been some discussion on the server sides about u sing next/previous in the response for how to access more data so a generator makes sense there 19:46:40 jamielennox: that probably does make sense there, then i wouldn't have to worry about a marker at all, just give a limit, keep going with next, stop when there isn't one 19:50:49 i take it that's probably the end. anything else in these last 10 min? 19:51:10 nope 19:52:20 #endmeeting