I submitted a rough draft for review @ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/81941/. Instead of using the pecan hook, I added a class property for the transport in the abstract engine class. On the pecan app setup, I passed the shared transport to the engine on load. Please provide feedback. Thanks.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Ryan Petrello <ryan.petre...@dreamhost.com>wrote: > Changing the configuration object at runtime is not thread-safe. If you > want to share objects with controllers, I'd suggest checking out Pecan's > hook functionality. > > > http://pecan.readthedocs.org/en/latest/hooks.html#implementating-a-pecan-hook > > e.g., > > class SpecialContextHook(object): > > def __init__(self, some_obj): > self.some_obj = some_obj > > def before(self, state): > # In any pecan controller, `pecan.request` is a thread-local > webob.Request instance, > # allowing you to access `pecan.request.context['foo']` in your > controllers. In this example, > # self.some_obj could be just about anything - a Python primitive, > or an instance of some class > state.request.context = { > 'foo': self.some_obj > } > > ... > > wsgi_app = pecan.Pecan( > my_package.controllers.root.RootController(), > hooks=[SpecialContextHook(SomeObj(1, 2, 3))] > ) > > --- > Ryan Petrello > Senior Developer, DreamHost > ryan.petre...@dreamhost.com > > On Mar 14, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Renat Akhmerov <rakhme...@mirantis.com> > wrote: > > > Take a look at method get_pecan_config() in mistral/api/app.py. It's > where you can pass any parameters into pecan app (see a dictionary > 'cfg_dict' initialization). They can be then accessed via pecan.conf as > described here: > http://pecan.readthedocs.org/en/latest/configuration.html#application-configuration. > If I understood the problem correctly this should be helpful. > > > > Renat Akhmerov > > @ Mirantis Inc. > > > > > > > > On 14 Mar 2014, at 05:14, Dmitri Zimine <d...@stackstorm.com> wrote: > > > >> We have access to all configuration parameters in the context of > api.py. May be you don't pass it but just instantiate it where you need it? > Or I may misunderstand what you're trying to do... > >> > >> DZ> > >> > >> PS: can you generate and update mistral.config.example to include new > oslo messaging options? I forgot to mention it on review on time. > >> > >> > >> On Mar 13, 2014, at 11:15 AM, W Chan <m4d.co...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On the transport variable, the problem I see isn't with passing the > variable to the engine and executor. It's passing the transport into the > API layer. The API layer is a pecan app and I currently don't see a way > where the transport variable can be passed to it directly. I'm looking at > https://github.com/stackforge/mistral/blob/master/mistral/cmd/api.py#L50and > https://github.com/stackforge/mistral/blob/master/mistral/api/app.py#L44. > Do you have any suggestion? Thanks. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Renat Akhmerov < > rakhme...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 13 Mar 2014, at 10:40, W Chan <m4d.co...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> * I can write a method in base test to start local executor. I > will do that as a separate bp. > >>> Ok. > >>> > >>>> * After the engine is made standalone, the API will communicate to > the engine and the engine to the executor via the oslo.messaging transport. > This means that for the "local" option, we need to start all three > components (API, engine, and executor) on the same process. If the long > term goal as you stated above is to use separate launchers for these > components, this means that the API launcher needs to duplicate all the > logic to launch the engine and the executor. Hence, my proposal here is to > move the logic to launch the components into a common module and either > have a single generic launch script that launch specific components based > on the CLI options or have separate launch scripts that reference the > appropriate launch function from the common module. > >>> Ok, I see your point. Then I would suggest we have one script which we > could use to run all the components (any subset of of them). So for those > components we specified when launching the script we use this local > transport. Btw, scheduler eventually should become a standalone component > too, so we have 4 components. > >>> > >>>> * The RPC client/server in oslo.messaging do not determine the > transport. The transport is determine via oslo.config and then given > explicitly to the RPC client/server. > https://github.com/stackforge/mistral/blob/master/mistral/engine/scalable/engine.py#L31and > https://github.com/stackforge/mistral/blob/master/mistral/cmd/task_executor.py#L63are > examples for the client and server respectively. The in process Queue > is instantiated within this transport object from the fake driver. For the > "local" option, all three components need to share the same transport in > order to have the Queue in scope. Thus, we will need some method to have > this transport object visible to all three components and hence my proposal > to use a global variable and a factory method. > >>> I'm still not sure I follow your point here.. Looking at the links you > provided I see this: > >>> > >>> transport = messaging.get_transport(cfg.CONF) > >>> > >>> So my point here is we can make this call once in the launching script > and pass it to engine/executor (and now API too if we want it to be > launched by the same script). Of course, we'll have to change the way how > we initialize these components, but I believe we can do it. So it's just a > dependency injection. And in this case we wouldn't need to use a global > variable. Am I still missing something? > >>> > >>> > >>> Renat Akhmerov > >>> @ Mirantis Inc. > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev