[openstack-dev] [oslo][kolla][openstack-helm][tripleo][all] Storing configuration options in etcd(?)
flavio at redhat.com
Wed Mar 22 15:23:16 UTC 2017
On 15/03/17 15:40 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2017-03-15 04:36:24 +0100:
>> On 03/14/2017 06:04 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> > Team,
>> > So one more thing popped up again on IRC:
>> > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/oslo.config_etcd_backend
>> > What do you think? interested in this work?
>> > Thanks,
>> > Dims
>> > PS: Between this thread and the other one about Tooz/DLM and
>> > os-lively, we can probably make a good case to add etcd as a base
>> > always-on service.
>> As I mentioned in the other thread, there was specific and strong
>> anti-etcd sentiment in Tokyo which is why we decided to use an
>> abstraction. I continue to be in favor of us having one known service in
>> this space, but I do think that it's important to revisit that decision
>> fully and in context of the concerns that were raised when we tried to
>> pick one last time.
>> It's worth noting that there is nothing particularly etcd-ish about
>> storing config that couldn't also be done with zk and thus just be an
>> additional api call or two added to Tooz with etcd and zk drivers for it.
>The fun* thing about working with these libraries is managing the
>interdependencies. If we're going to have an abstraction library that
>provides configuration options for seeing the backend, like we do in
>oslo.db and olso.messaging, then the configuration library can't use it
>or we have a circular dependency.
>Luckily, tooz does not currently use oslo.config. So, oslo.config could
>use tooz and we could create an oslo.dlm library with a shallow
>interface mapping config options to tooz calls to open connections or
>whatever we need from tooz in an application. Then apps could use
>oslo.dlm instead of calling into tooz directly and the configuration of
>the backend would be hidden from the application developer.
Replying here becasue I like the proposal, I like what Monty said and I also
like what Doug said. Most of the issues and concerns have been covered in this
thread and I don't have much else to add other than +1.
>* your definition of "fun" may be different than mine
Which is probably different than mine :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 862 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the OpenStack-dev