[openstack-dev] [openstack-tc] Incubation Request for Barbican

Doug Hellmann doug.hellmann at dreamhost.com
Tue Dec 3 14:10:56 UTC 2013


On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Jarret Raim <jarret.raim at rackspace.com>wrote:

> > There are two big parts to this, I think.  One is techincal - a
> significant
> > portion
> > of OpenStack deployments will not work with this because Celery does not
> > work with their deployed messaging architecture.
> >  See another reply in this thread for an example of someone that sees the
> > inability to use Qpid as a roadblock for an example.  This is solvable,
> but
> > not
> > quickly.
> >
> > The other is somewhat technical, but also a community issue.  Monty
> > articulated this well in another reply.  Barbican has made a conflicting
> > library
> > choice with what every other project using messaging is using.
> > With the number of projects we have, it is in our best interest to strive
> > for
> > consistency where we can.  Differences should not be arbitrary.  The
> > differences should only be where an exception is well justified.  I don't
> > see
> > that as being the case here.  Should everyone using oslo.messaging (or
> its
> > predecessor rpc in oslo-incubator) be using Celery?  Maybe.  I don't
> know,
> > but that's the question at hand.  Ideally this would have come up with a
> > more
> > broad audience sooner.  If it did, I'm sorry I missed it.
>
> I understand the concern here and I'm happy to have Barbican look at using
> oslo.messaging during the Icehouse cycle.
>
> I am a bit surprised at the somewhat strong reactions to our choice. When
> we
> created Barbican, we looked at the messaging frameworks out there for use.
> At
> the time, oslo.messaging was not packaged, not documented, not tested, had
> no
> track record and an unknown level of community support.
>

The API and developer documentation is at
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/oslo.messaging/

Doug



> Celery is a battle-tested library that is widely deployed with a good track
> record, strong community and decent documentation. We made our choice
> based on
> those factors, just as the same as we would for any library inclusion.
>
> As celery has met our needs up to this point, we saw no reason to revisit
> the
> decision until now. In that time oslo.messaging  has moved to a separate
> repo.
> It still has little to no documentation, but the packaging and maintenance
> issues seem to be on the way to being sorted.
>
> So in short, in celery we get a reliable library with good docs that is
> battle
> tested, but is limited to the transports supported by Kombu. Both celery
> and
> Kombu are extendable and have many backends including AMQP, Redis,
> Beanstalk,
> Amazon SQS, CouchDB, MongoDB, ZeroMQ, ZooKeeper, SoftLayer MQ and Pyro.
>
> Oslo.messaging seems to have good support in OpenStack, but still lacks
> documentation and packaging (though some of that is being sorted out now).
> It
> offers support for qpid which celery seems to lack. It also offers a common
> place for message signing and some other nice to have features for
> OpenStack.
>
> Based on the commonality in OpenStack (and the lack of anyone else using
> Celery), I think looking to move to oslo.messaging is a good goal. This
> will
> take some time, but I think doing it by Icehouse seems reasonable. I think
> that is what you and Monty are asking for?
>
> I have added the task to our list on
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Barbican/Incubation.
>
>
> Thanks again for all the eyeballs our on application.
>
>
> Jarret
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131203/01133367/attachment.html>


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list