On 01/22, Scott Seago wrote: > On 01/22/2013 08:01 AM, Michal Fojtik wrote: > >On 01/08, Hugh Brock wrote: > > > >Maybe a crazy idea, but Torquebox already includes messaging, background > >jobs, services and all other things mentioned in the original email. > > > >I have PoC of running Conductor inside Torquebox (using jRuby). I > >understand it might be a big step but definitely worth to at least > >investigate as an option :-) > > > >Just my .20cents. > > > > -- Michal > > > We've talked about using torquebox on-and-off over the last couple > years. The growing consensus there seems to be that we do want to be > able to run on it, but not at the expense of getting locked in to > using _only_ torquebox. In other words, the main issue with going to > Torquebox would be to make sure that we _don't_ start requiring the > use of services that only exist in torquebox -- so to use the above > services we'd have to make each one of them either pluggable (so we > could also use pure ruby alternatives) or optional.
Understood. I played with TB a bit and I the messaging and other classes/models could be easily substituted by something else. I mean this whole messaging thing could be very flexible (like using something like 'Aeolus::Messaging' interface with :publish and :subscribe methods. Then the messaging backend could be Torquebox or whatever else that can handle publishing and subscribing ;-) (AMQP, etc) -- Michal > > Scott > -- Michal Fojtik <[email protected]> Deltacloud API, CloudForms
