Hi Julien,
On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 16:45 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Julien Danjou wrote:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/messaging-decouple-cfg
So I've gone through the code and started to write a plan on how I'd do
things:
On Fri, Dec 06 2013, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Mark,
If the goal is allow applications to use oslo.messaging without using
oslo.config, then what's driving this? I'm guessing some possible
answers:
5) But I want to avoid any dependency on oslo.config
I think that's the more important one
On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 15:41 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06 2013, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi Mark,
If the goal is allow applications to use oslo.messaging without using
oslo.config, then what's driving this? I'm guessing some possible
answers:
5) But I want to avoid any
I really have to agree with this. It's especially important if oslo.messaging
is also used in libraries like taskflow. If oslo.messaging imposes that users
of it must use oslo.config then by using it in taskflow, taskflow then imposes
the same oslo.config usage. This makes all libraries that
Previous not precious, ha, durn autocorrect, lol.
Sent from my really tiny device...
On Dec 6, 2013, at 9:50 AM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
Forgive me for not understanding your precious email (which I guess was
confusing for me to understand). This one clears that up. If
Forgive me for not understanding your precious email (which I guess was
confusing for me to understand). This one clears that up. If only we all had
Vulcan mind meld capabilities, haha.
Thanks for helping me understand, no need to get frustrated. Not everyone is
able to decipher your email in
Could jsonschema[1] be used here to do the options schema part? It works on
dictionaries (and really isn't tied to json). But maybe I am missing some
greater context/understanding (see other emails).
[1] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jsonschema
Sent from my really tiny device...
On Dec 6,
On Tue, Dec 03 2013, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Another question that¹s come up recently. Python 3.3 support? Will
oslo.messaging achieve that? Maybe its a later goal, but it seems like one
that is required (and should almost be expected of new libraries imho).
Thoughts? Seems to be mainly eventlet
On 04/12/13 10:14 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03 2013, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Another question that¹s come up recently. Python 3.3 support? Will
oslo.messaging achieve that? Maybe its a later goal, but it seems like one
that is required (and should almost be expected of new libraries
On Mon, Dec 02 2013, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Thanks for writing this up, looking forward to seeing this happen so that
oslo.messaging can be used outside of the core openstack projects (and be
used in libraries that do not want to force a oslo.cfg model onto users of
said libraries).
Any idea
Of course ;-)
Another question that¹s come up recently. Python 3.3 support? Will
oslo.messaging achieve that? Maybe its a later goal, but it seems like one
that is required (and should almost be expected of new libraries imho).
Thoughts? Seems to be mainly eventlet that is the blocker for
On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Julien Danjou wrote:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/messaging-decouple-cfg
So I've gone through the code and started to write a plan on how I'd do
things:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Oslo/blueprints/messaging-decouple-cfg
I don't think I missed too
Thanks for writing this up, looking forward to seeing this happen so that
oslo.messaging can be used outside of the core openstack projects (and be
used in libraries that do not want to force a oslo.cfg model onto users of
said libraries).
Any idea of a timeline as to when this would be reflected
Hi Oslo developers,
It seems my latest patch¹ on oslo.messaging scared Mark, so I'll try to
discuss it a bit on this mailing list as it is more convenient.
I've created a blueprint² as requested by Mark. That seems necessary
since it will be spread on several patch.
Now to the core.
On 11/18/2013 05:05 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
Hi Oslo developers,
It seems my latest patch¹ on oslo.messaging scared Mark, so I'll try to
discuss it a bit on this mailing list as it is more convenient.
I've created a blueprint² as requested by Mark. That seems necessary
since it will be spread
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:05:20AM +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
Hi Oslo developers,
It seems my latest patch¹ on oslo.messaging scared Mark, so I'll try to
discuss it a bit on this mailing list as it is more convenient.
I've created a blueprint² as requested by Mark. That seems
It seems to me that having this separation of concerns in oslo.messaging
would be good idea. My plan is to move out the configuration object out
of the basic object, like I did in the first patch.
I don't plan to break the configuration handling or so, I just think it
should be handled in a
On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Eric Windisch wrote:
Hi Eric,
I agree with Mark that a clear blueprint and plan should be outlined.
I'm not happy with the blueprint as written, it is sparse, outlining
your intention, rather than a plan of attack. I'd really like to know
what the plan of attack here is,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Julien Danjou jul...@danjou.info wrote:
Hi Oslo developers,
It seems my latest patch¹ on oslo.messaging scared Mark, so I'll try to
discuss it a bit on this mailing list as it is more convenient.
I've created a blueprint² as requested by Mark. That seems
Hi Julien,
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 11:05 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
Hi Oslo developers,
It seems my latest patch¹ on oslo.messaging scared Mark, so I'll try to
discuss it a bit on this mailing list as it is more convenient.
Scared, heh :)
I've created a blueprint² as requested by Mark.
On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Ok, so it's a ceilometer blueprint and says:
The goal of this blueprint is to be able to use oslo.messaging
without using a configuration file/object, while keeping its usage
possible and not breaking compatibility with OpenStack
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:37 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
I'm struggling to care about this until I have some insight into why
it's important. And it's a bit frustrating to have to guess the
rationale for this. Like commit messages, blueprints
Hey Doug,
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 11:29 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Julien Danjou jul...@danjou.info wrote:
Hi Oslo developers,
It seems my latest patch¹ on oslo.messaging scared Mark, so I'll try to
discuss it a bit on this mailing list as it is more
I see it as important (and not theoretical).
I'd like to use oslo.messaging (and oslo.messaging.rpc) in taskflow (to
prototype how a distributed engine would work using it) and bringing in a
library which requires global configuration is almost a non-starter for
me. Although taskflow is targeted
24 matches
Mail list logo
