Salvatore Orlando wrote:
On 21 April 2016 at 16:54, Boden Russell <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 4/20/16 3:29 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Yes, please, let's try to make that work and contribute upstream if we
> need minor modifications, before we create something new.
We can leverage the 'retrying' module (already in global requirements).
It lacks a few things we need, but those can be implemented using its
existing "hooks" today, or, working with the module owner(s) to push a
few changes that we need (the later probably provides the "greatest
good").
Retrying (even if mostly a 1-man effort) already has a history of
contribution from different sources, including a few OpenStack
contributors as well.
It hasn't had many commits in the past 12 months, but this does not mean
new PRs won't be accepted.
Starting a new library for something like this really feels like NIH.
Yes please (as a person that has contributed to that library); I know
the retrying library isn't perfect, but let's IMHO do our due diligence
there before we go off and make something else. I know that's not always
an easy proposition (or sometimes even the shortest path) but think it
is our responsibility to at least try (the library isn't that huge, and
it is pretty targeted at doing a small thing, so its not like there is a
massive amount of code or a massive amount of history...)
As for hooks vs contributions this really depends on what you need to
add. Can you share more details on the "few things we need" that
retrying is lacking?
(and I apologise if you shared them earlier in this thread - I did not
read all of it)
Assuming we'll leverage 'retrying', I was thinking the initial goals
here are:
(a) Ensure 'retrying' supports the behaviors we need for our usages in
neutron + nova (see [1] - [5] on my initial note) today. Implementation
details TBD.
(b) Implement a "Backing off RPC client" in oslo, inspired by [1].
Do you think oslo_messaging would be a good target? Or do you think it
should go somewhere else?
(c) Update nova + neutron to use the "common implementation(s)" rather
than 1-offs.
This sounds fun and I'm happy to take it on. However, I probably won't
make much progress until after the summit for obvious reasons. I'll plan
to lead with code, if a RFE/spec/other is needed please let me know.
Additional comments welcomed.
Thanks
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/280595
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
<http://[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
