Open Stack

>
>I agree that this is concerning. And that what's concerning isn't so
>much that the project did something different, but rather that choice
>was apparently made because the project thought it was perfectly fine
>for them to ignore what other OpenStack projects do and go off and do
>its own thing.
>
>We can't make this growth in the number of OpenStack projects work if
>each project goes off randomly and does its own thing without any
>concern for the difficulties that creates.
>
>Mark.

Hi Mark,

You may have missed it, but barbican has added a blueprint to change our
queue to use oslo.messaging [1]

I just wanted to clarify that we didn’t choose Celery because we thought
that “it was perfectly fine to ignore what other OpenStack projects do”.
Incubation has been one of our goals since the project began.  If you’ve
taken the time to look at our code, you’ve seen that we have been using
oslo.config this whole time.  We chose Celery because it was

a) Properly packaged like any other python library, so we could just
pip-install it.
b) Well documented
c) Well tested in production environments

At the time none of those were true for oslo.messaging.  In fact,
oslo.messgaging still cannot be pip-installed as of today.  Obviously, had
we know that using oslo.messaging is hard requirement in advance, we would
have chosen it despite its poor distribution story.

- Doug Mendizabal

[1] 
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/barbican/+spec/queue-use-oslo-messaging