Open Stack

On 11/18/2013 05:05 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> Hi Oslo developers,
>
> It seems my latest patch¹ on oslo.messaging scared Mark, so I'll try to
> discuss it a bit on this mailing list as it is more convenient.
>
> I've created a blueprint² as requested by Mark. That seems necessary
> since it will be spread on several patch.
>
> Now to the core. oslo.messaging API mixes usage of parameters and
> configuration file object. Such as you have to provide a configuration
> object for basic API usage, even if you don't have a configuration
> object.
>
> It seems to me that having this separation of concerns in oslo.messaging
> would be good idea. My plan is to move out the configuration object out
> of the basic object, like I did in the first patch.
>
> I don't plan to break the configuration handling or so, I just think it
> should be handled in a separate, individually testable part of the code.
>
> Ultimately, this would allow oslo.messaging to not be 'oslo' only, and
> just being friendly with oslo.config and therefore OpenStack. A goal I
> wish we'd had in more oslo library. :)
>
> If you think this is a bad idea, well, feel free to mark the blueprint
> as so and I'll drop the work.

I think it's a good idea to have as few dependencies between these 
libraries as possible. It encourages re-use and adoption of the 
individual libraries and doesn't force developers to use a particular 
library if they don't like the code or design or whatever in the 
dependent libs.

Less coupling == win.

Best,
-jay