On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 12:46 -0700, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 09/09/2014 07:04 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote:
> > On 9/9/14, 4:47 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:

> >> The questions now before us are:
> >> - should OpenStack include, in the integrated release, a
> >> messaging-as-a-service component?
> >
> > I certainly think so. I've worked on a few reasonable-scale web
> > applications, and they all followed the same pattern: HTTP app servers
> > serving requests quickly, background workers for long-running tasks, and
> > some sort of durable message-broker/queue-server thing for conveying
> > work from the first to the second.
> >
> > A quick straw poll of my nearby coworkers shows that every non-trivial
> > web application that they've worked on in the last decade follows the
> > same pattern.
> >
> > While not *every* application needs such a thing, web apps are quite
> > common these days, and Zaqar satisfies one of their big requirements.
> > Not only that, it does so in a way that requires much less babysitting
> > than run-your-own-broker does.
> Right. But here's the thing.
> What you just described is what we all thought zaqar was aiming to be in 
> the beginning. We did not think it was a GOOD implementation of that, so 
> while we agreed that it would be useful to have one of those, we were 
> not crazy about the implementation.

Those generalizations are uncomfortably sweeping.

What Samuel just described is one of the messaging patterns that Zaqar
implements and some (members of the TC?) believed that this messaging
pattern was the only pattern that Zaqar aimed to implement.

Some (members of the TC?) formed strong, negative opinions about how
this messaging pattern was implemented, but some/all of those same
people agreed a messaging API implementing those semantics would be a
useful thing to have.


OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to