Open Stack

On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:37 +0100, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18 2013, Mark McLoughlin wrote:

> > I'm struggling to care about this until I have some insight into why
> > it's important. And it's a bit frustrating to have to guess the
> > rationale for this. Like commit messages, blueprints should be as much
> > about the why as the what.
> 
> Sure. I ought to think that having an application that wants to leverage
> oslo.messaging but is not using oslo.config and is retrieving its
> parameter from another way is a good enough argument.

It's a theoretical benefit versus the very practical "design an API for
the use cases that are actually important to OpenStack projects".

> > As I said in the review, I'm totally fine with the idea of allowing
> > oslo.messaging to be used without a configuration object ... but I think
> > the common use case is to use it with a configuration object and I don't
> > want to undermine the usability of the library in the common use case.
> 
> Understood. I know it's already a pain to transition from RPC to
> messaging, and I don't want to add more burden on that transition.

Cool, thanks.

Mark.