On 08/28/2014 12:34 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > On Aug 28, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Mark McLoughlin <mar...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 13:24 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote: >>> On 08/27/2014 03:35 PM, Ken Giusti wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I believe Juno-3 is our last chance to get this feature  included >>>> into olso.messaging. >>>> >>>> I honestly believe this patch is about as low risk as possible for a >>>> change that introduces a whole new transport into oslo.messaging. The >>>> patch shouldn't affect the existing transports at all, and doesn't >>>> come into play unless the application specifically turns on the new >>>> 'amqp' transport, which won't be the case for existing applications. >>>> >>>> The patch includes a set of functional tests which exercise all the >>>> messaging patterns, timeouts, and even broker failover. These tests do >>>> not mock out any part of the driver - a simple test broker is included >>>> which allows the full driver codepath to be executed and verified. >>>> >>>> IFAIK, the only remaining technical block to adding this feature, >>>> aside from core reviews , is sufficient infrastructure test coverage. >>>> We discussed this a bit at the last design summit. The root of the >>>> issue is that this feature is dependent on a platform-specific library >>>> (proton) that isn't in the base repos for most of the CI platforms. >>>> But it is available via EPEL, and the Apache QPID team is actively >>>> working towards getting the packages into Debian (a PPA is available >>>> in the meantime). >>>> >>>> In the interim I've proposed a non-voting CI check job that will >>>> sanity check the new driver on EPEL based systems . I'm also >>>> working towards adding devstack support , which won't be done in >>>> time for Juno but nevertheless I'm making it happen. >>>> >>>> I fear that this feature's inclusion is stuck in a chicken/egg >>>> deadlock: the driver won't get merged until there is CI support, but >>>> the CI support won't run correctly (and probably won't get merged) >>>> until the driver is available. The driver really has to be merged >>>> first, before I can continue with CI/devstack development. >>>> >>>>  >>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo.messaging/+spec/amqp10-driver-implementation >>>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/75815/ >>>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/115752/ >>>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/109118/ >>> >>> >>> Hi Ken, >>> >>> Thanks a lot for your hard work here. As I stated in my last comment on >>> the driver's review, I think we should let this driver land and let >>> future patches improve it where/when needed. >>> >>> I agreed on letting the driver land as-is based on the fact that there >>> are patches already submitted ready to enable the gates for this driver. >> >> I feel bad that the driver has been in a pretty complete state for quite >> a while but hasn't received a whole lot of reviews. There's a lot of >> promise to this idea, so it would be ideal if we could unblock it. >> >> One thing I've been meaning to do this cycle is add concrete advice for >> operators on the state of each driver. I think we'd be a lot more >> comfortable merging this in Juno if we could somehow make it clear to >> operators that it's experimental right now. My idea was: >> >> - Write up some notes which discusses the state of each driver e.g. >> >> - RabbitMQ - the default, used by the majority of OpenStack >> deployments, perhaps list some of the known bugs, particularly >> around HA. >> >> - Qpid - suitable for production, but used in a limited number of >> deployments. Again, list known issues. Mention that it will >> probably be removed with the amqp10 driver matures. >> >> - Proton/AMQP 1.0 - experimental, in active development, will >> support multiple brokers and topologies, perhaps a pointer to a >> wiki page with the current TODO list >> >> - ZeroMQ - unmaintained and deprecated, planned for removal in >> Kilo >> >> - Propose this addition to the API docs and ask the operators list >> for feedback >> >> - Propose a patch which adds a load-time deprecation warning to the >> ZeroMQ driver >> >> - Include a load-time experimental warning in the proton driver >> >> Thoughts on that? > > By "API docs" do you mean the ones in the oslo.messaging repository? Would it > be better to put this information in the operator’s guide?
I was talking to Ken a little about this today and came up with http://docs.openstack.org/icehouse/config-reference/content/configuring-rpc.html That seems like a reasonable place to put information like this (in fact, there's already some there about rabbit being the default). I wasn't sure exactly where those docs are generated from, so I suggested he talk to Anne Gentle about it. -Ben > > Other than the question of where to put it, I definitely think this is the > sort of guidance we should document, including through the logged warnings. > > Doug > >> >> (I understand the ZeroMQ situation needs further discussion - I don't >> think that's on-topic for the thread, I was just using it as example of >> what kind of advice we'd be giving in these docs) >> >> Mark. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStackemail@example.com >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev