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
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev