On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Mark McLoughlin wrote:

> Ok, so it's a ceilometer blueprint and says:
>
>   "The goal of this blueprint is to be able to use oslo.messaging
>    without using a configuration file/object, while keeping its usage
>    possible and not breaking compatibility with OpenStack applications."
>
> Why is that important to ceilometer? Ceilometer heavily uses the RPC
> code already and uses the config object.

It's a mistake, it should be under Oslo as Eric pointed out.

> I'm struggling to care about this until I have some insight into why
> it's important. And it's a bit frustrating to have to guess the
> rationale for this. Like commit messages, blueprints should be as much
> about the why as the what.

Sure. I ought to think that having an application that wants to leverage
oslo.messaging but is not using oslo.config and is retrieving its
parameter from another way is a good enough argument.

> As I said in the review, I'm totally fine with the idea of allowing
> oslo.messaging to be used without a configuration object ... but I think
> the common use case is to use it with a configuration object and I don't
> want to undermine the usability of the library in the common use case.

Understood. I know it's already a pain to transition from RPC to
messaging, and I don't want to add more burden on that transition.

-- 
Julien Danjou
-- Free Software hacker - independent consultant
-- http://julien.danjou.info

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to