From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4325356054570272775==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Walker, Benjamin Subject: Re: [SPDK] Add py-spdk client for SPDK Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 22:28:37 +0000 Message-ID: <1517005716.25907.61.camel@intel.com> In-Reply-To: CAHZqm+WnY2uifnq1wTQCYXTxR0e90sqq0H16n=PN2tgrNSF4OA@mail.gmail.com List-ID: To: spdk@lists.01.org --===============4325356054570272775== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 07:13 +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote: > Do we have a conclusion on this issue ? If it is ok to have a spdk/sdk re= po, > then wewe will modify the current patch (get rid of protobuff) and resubm= it > the patch to the new repo once it is established (meanwhile abandon the > current one to spdk/spdk). If you remove protobuf, can you describe what is left? Recently scripts/rpc= .py was refactored to break it up into a set of Python libraries in scripts/rpc, plus the command line tool at scripts/rpc.py. What functionality does this = new code provide over and above what is already present there? SPDK is certainly in need of better management tools, so in the most general sense the community is very supportive of your effort here. New management = tools can also go directly into the main spdk repository (a separate repository w= as only suggested when we thought this was a Python binding to the SPDK librar= ies). I'm wondering if an easier way forward would be to continue refining the Py= thon packages in scripts/rpc to be more general purpose libraries for sending the JSON RPCs. What are your thoughts on that? --===============4325356054570272775==--