[openstack-dev] [OSLO][RPC] AMQP / ZeroMQ control_exchange vs port numbers
markmc at redhat.com
Mon Apr 29 14:06:01 UTC 2013
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 09:28 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> * There are probably reasonable use cases (like a ceilometer
> notifications plugin used by nova, but also cells) for a service to
> connect to another broker and/or use a different exchange. Even
> without those use cases, though, I think it would be lame for the
> API to only allow such things to be specified through global
> configuration ... global configuration should be a convenience
> default only.
> Agreed. I would prefer it if we could establish an API that didn't use
> the global configuration object at all.
I guess I'm thinking that this is the only place it's used:
def get_transport_driver(url=None, conf=None):
conf = conf or cfg.CONF
i.e. the entry point into the library is to construct a transport
driver. If that has optional support for using the global object, I
don't think it's a big deal.
When I said "global configuration", though, I actually more meant that
it would be lame if transport configuration could only come from a cfg
object - e.g. if ceilometer had to construct a cfg object with the
configuration required to connect to glance notifications.
More information about the OpenStack-dev