On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:37 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > 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. It's a theoretical benefit versus the very practical "design an API for the use cases that are actually important to OpenStack projects". > > 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. Cool, thanks. Mark. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev