On 07/10/2014 06:46 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 16:27 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: >> Hey >> >> This is an attempt to summarize a really useful discussion that Victor, >> Flavio and I have been having today. At the bottom are some background >> links - basically what I have open in my browser right now thinking >> through all of this. >> >> We're attempting to take baby-steps towards moving completely from >> eventlet to asyncio/trollius. The thinking is for Ceilometer to be the >> first victim. > > I got a little behind on this thread, but maybe it'd be helpful to > summarize some things from this good discussion:
Thanks for summarizing the thread up. > - "Is moving to asyncio really a priority compared to other things?" > > I think Victor has made a good case on "what's wrong with > eventlet?"[1] and, personally, I'm excited about the prospect of > the Python community more generally converging on asyncio. > Understanding what OpenStack would need in order move to asyncio > will help the asyncio effort more generally. > > Figuring through some of this stuff is a priority for Victor and > others, but no-one is saying it's an immediate priority for the > whole project. Agreed. Lets not underestimate the contributions OpenStack as a community has done to Python and the fact that it can/should keep doing them. Experimenting with asyncio will bring to light things that can be contributed back to the community and it'll also help creating new scenarios and use-cases around asyncio. > > - Moving from an implicitly async to an explicitly async programming > has enormous implications and we need to figure out what it means > for libraries like SQLalchemy and abstraction layers like ORMs. > > I think that's well understood - the topic of this thread is > merely how to make a small addition to oslo.messaging (the ability > to dispatch asyncio co-routines on eventlet) so that we can move on > to figuring out the next piece of puzzle. Lets take 1 step at a time. oslo.messaging is a core piece of OpenStack but it's also a library that can be used outside OpenStack. Having support for explicit async in oslo.messaging is a good thing for the library itself regardless of whether it'll be adopted throughout OpenStack in the long run. > - Taskflow vs asyncio - good discussion, plenty to figure out. > They're mostly orthogonal concerns IMHO but *maybe* we decide > adopting both makes sense and that both should be adopted together. > I'd like to see more concrete examples showing taskflow vs asyncio > vs taskflow/asyncio to understand better. > +1 > So, tl;dr is that lots of work remains to even begin to understand how > exactly asyncio could be adopted and whether that makes sense. The > thread raises some interesting viewpoints, but I don't think it moves > our understanding along all that much. The initial mail was simply about > unlocking one very small piece of the puzzle. > Agreed. I'm happy to help moving this effort forward and gather some real-life results onto which we can base future plans and decisions. Flavio. -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev