I started the following issue on kombu's github page (to see if there is any interest on there side to such an effort):


It's about seeing if the kombu folks would be ok with a 'rpc' subfolder in there repository that can start to contain 'rpc' like functionality that now exists in oslo.messaging (I don't see why they would be against this kind of idea, since it seems to make sense IMHO).

Let's see what happens,


Doug Hellmann wrote:

On Nov 13, 2014, at 7:02 PM, Joshua Harlow <harlo...@yahoo-inc.com
<mailto:harlo...@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:

Don't forget my executor which isn't dependent on a larger set of
changes for asyncio/trollious...


The above will/should just 'work', although I'm unsure what thread
count should be by default (the number of green threads that is set at
like 200 shouldn't be the same number used in that executor which uses
real python/system threads). The neat thing about that executor is
that it can also replace the eventlet one, since when eventlet is
monkey patching the threading module (which it should be) then it
should behave just as the existing eventlet one; which IMHO is pretty
cool (and could be one way to completely remove the eventlet usage in

Good point, thanks for reminding me.

As for the kombu discussions, maybe its time to jump on the #celery
channel (where the kombu folks hang out) and start talking to them
about how we can work better together to move some of our features
into kombu (and also depreciate/remove some of the oslo.messaging
features that now are in kombu). I believe
https://launchpad.net/~asksol is the main guy there (and also the main
maintainer of celery/kombu?). It'd be nice to have these
cross-community talks and at least come up with some kind of game
plan; hopefully one that benefits both communities…

I would like that, but won’t have time to do it myself this cycle. Maybe
we can find another volunteer from the team?



*From:* Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:22 PM
*Subject:* [openstack-dev] [oslo] oslo.messaging outcome from the summit

The oslo.messaging session at the summit [1] resulted in some plans to
evolve how oslo.messaging works, but probably not during this cycle.

First, we talked about what to do about the various drivers like
ZeroMQ and the new AMQP 1.0 driver. We decided that rather than moving
those out of the main tree and packaging them separately, we would
keep them all in the main repository to encourage the driver authors
to help out with the core library (oslo.messaging is a critical
component of OpenStack, and we’ve lost several of our core reviewers
for the library to other priorities recently).

There is a new set of contributors interested in maintaining the
ZeroMQ driver, and they are going to work together to review each
other’s patches. We will re-evaluate keeping ZeroMQ at the end of
Kilo, based on how things go this cycle.

We also talked about the fact that the new version of Kombu includes
some of the features we have implemented in our own driver, like
heartbeats and connection management. Kombu does not include the
calling patterns (cast/call/notifications) that we have in
oslo.messaging, but we may be able to remove some code from our driver
and consolidate the qpid and rabbit driver code to let Kombu do more
of the work for us.

Python 3 support is coming slowly. There are a couple of patches up
for review to provide a different sort of executor based on greenio
and trollius. Adopting that would require some application-level
changes to use co-routines, so it may not be an optimal solution even
though it would get us off of eventlet. (During the Python 3 session
later in the week we talked about the possibility of fixing eventlet’s
monkey-patching to allow us to use the new eventlet under python 3.)

We also talked about the way the oslo.messaging API uses URLs to get
some settings and configuration options for others. I thought I
remembered this being a conscious decision to pass connection-specific
parameters in the URL, and “global” parameters via configuration
settings. It sounds like that split may not have been implemented as
cleanly as originally intended, though. We identified documenting URL
parameters as an issue for removing the configuration object, as well
as backwards-compatibility. I don’t think we agreed on any specific
changes to the API based on this part of the discussion, but please
correct me if your recollection is different.

We also learned that there is a critical bug [2] related to heartbeats
for RabbitMQ, and we have a few patches up to propose fixes in
different ways (see the bottom of [1]). This highlighted again the
fact that we have a shortage of reviewers for oslo.messaging.


[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-oslo-oslo.messaging
[2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/856764

OpenStack-dev mailing list

OpenStack-dev mailing list

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Sent with Postbox <http://www.getpostbox.com>

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to