On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Ben Nemec <openst...@nemebean.com> wrote:
On 08/11/2014 01:02 PM, Yuriy Taraday wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@outlook.com> wrote:
 One question from me:

Will there be later fixes to remove oslo.config dependency/usage from
 oslo.concurrency?

I still don't understand how oslo.concurrency can be used as a library with the configuration being set in a static manner via oslo.config (let's
 use the example of `lock_path` @ https://github.com/YorikSar/
oslo.concurrency/blob/master/oslo/concurrency/lockutils.py#L41). For
 example:

 Library X inside application Z uses lockutils (via the nice
oslo.concurrency library) and sets the configuration `lock_path` to its desired settings, then library Y (also a user of oslo.concurrency) inside same application Z sets the configuration for `lock_path` to its desired settings. Now both have some unknown set of configuration they have set and when library X (or Y) continues to use lockutils they will be using some mix of configuration (likely some mish mash of settings set by X and Y); perhaps to a `lock_path` that neither actually wants to be able to write
 to...

This doesn't seem like it will end well; and will just cause headaches
 during debug sessions, testing, integration and more...

The same question can be asked about the `set_defaults()` function, how is
 library Y or X expected to use this (are they?)??

 I hope one of the later changes is to remove/fix this??

 Thoughts?

 -Josh
I'd be happy to remove lock_path config variable altogether. It's basically
 never used. There are two basic branches in code wrt lock_path:
- when you provide lock_path argument to lock (and derivative functions),
 file-based lock is used and CONF.lock_path is ignored;
- when you don't provide lock_path in arguments, semaphore-based lock is used and CONF.lock_path is just a prefix for its name (before hashing). I wonder if users even set lock_path in their configs as it has almost no
 effect. So I'm all for removing it, but...
From what I understand, every major change in lockutils drags along a lot of headache for everybody (and risk of bugs that would be discovered very late). So is such change really worth it? And if so, it will require very
 thorough research of lockutils usage patterns.

Two things lock_path has to stay for: Windows and consumers who require file-based locking semantics. Neither of those use cases are trivial to
remove, so IMHO it would not be appropriate to do it as part of the
graduation.  If we were going to alter the API that much it needed to
happen in incubator.


As far as lock_path mismatches, that shouldn't be a problem unless a
consumer is doing something very unwise.  Oslo libs get their
configuration from the application using them, so unless the application
passes two separate conf objects to library X and Y they're both going
to get consistent settings.  If someone _is_ doing that, then I think
it's their responsibility to make sure the options in both config files
are compatible with each other.

Why would it be assumed they would pass the same settings (how is that even possible to know ahead of time? especially if library X pulls in a new library ZZ that requires a new configuration setting). For example, one directory for `lock_path` may be reasonable for tooz and another may be reasonable for taskflow (completly depends on there intended usage), it would not likely desireable to have them go to the same location. Forcing application Z to know the inner workings of library X and library Y (or future unknown library ZZ) is just pushing the problem onto the library user, which seems inappropriate and breaks the whole point of having abstractions & APIs in the first place... This IMHO is part of the problem with having statically set *action at a distance* type of configuration, the libraries themselves are not in control of their own configuration, which breaks abstractions & APIs left and right. If some application Y can go under a library and pull the rug out from under it, how is that a reasonable thing to expect the library to be able to predict & handle?

This kind of requirement has always made me wonder how other libraries (like tooz, or taskflow) actually interact with any of the oslo.* libraries in any predicatable way (since those library could be interacting with oslo.* libraries that have configuration that can be switched out from underneath them, making those libraries have *secret* APIs that appear and disappear depending on what used oslo.* library was newly added as a dependency and what newly added configuration that library sucked in/exposed...).

-Josh



-Ben

_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to