Open Stack

On Fri, Apr 26 2013, Doug Hellmann wrote:

> After thinking about this a little more I realized that this doesn't solve
> the problem of allowing one service to talk to another on a separate
> "exchange." If that's still something we want to do, we need another
> argument passed to the ConnectionFactory to represent that exchange
> explicitly (I know we need another name, but until we come up with one I'll
> stick with "exchange"). The default can come from the config, but callers
> like ceilometer need a way to specify an alternative value.
>
> Do we care if the exchange for a service is not on the same host? Do we
> need to allow users to provide different host/port settings for every
> exchange?

Yes, that's why I thought we would include the control exchange as part
of a connection URL. That would be an abstraction detail for AMQP, where
url would be something like amqp://localhost:3456/mycontrolexchange.

For example, in my envisioned Ceilometer case we would just have to specify the
ceilometer URL as amqp://host:port/ceilometer to be able to use
rpc.call().

For our current notification consuming, we sould use an URL for each
notification listener for each project: amqp://host:port/nova,
amqp://host:port/glance, etc.

I'm pretty confident we can map this URL scheme to ZMQ (and its
matchmaker) and includes all its components in the Connection as
discriminating.

-- 
Julien Danjou
-- Free Software hacker - freelance consultant
-- http://julien.danjou.info
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130426/d87fe80a/attachment.pgp>