<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<br>
<div>
<div>On May 2, 2013, at 7:53 AM, Alex Glikson <<a href="mailto:GLIKSON@il.ibm.com">GLIKSON@il.ibm.com</a>></div>
<div> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><tt><font size="2">Changbin Liu <<a href="mailto:changbin.liu@gmail.com">changbin.liu@gmail.com</a>> wrote on 02/05/2013 05:32:05 PM:<br>
<br>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Nova workflow management update</font></tt> <br>
<tt><font size="2">> <br>
> Hi Joshua, </font></tt> <br>
<tt><font size="2">> <br>
> Just to share some thoughts:</font></tt> <br>
<tt><font size="2">[...]<br>
</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">Using ZK makes a lot of sense.. The problem is that making ZooKeeper a mandatory component to support even basic workflow management might be an issue. So, the approach which seems to make most sense is to define abstract internal interfaces
for the various capabilities that ZK can provide (distributed locking, leader election, etc), and then have one or more implementations (one of which might be based on ZK). This is the approach that has been taken for the membership service (service group
monitoring APIs) -- introducing the flexibility to use ZK backend, but keeping the default to be DB-backed.</font></tt> </blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>+1</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Adrian</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>