Open Stack

Ryan Brown wrote:
> On 04/10/2015 01:52 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>> Flavio Percoco wrote:
>>> On 10/04/15 10:00 -0400, Ryan Brown wrote:
>>>> On 04/09/2015 09:40 PM, Angus Salkeld wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>>> Could Zaqar fulfil all of these use case? - Maybe.
>>>> Zaqar as it presently exists, maybe. Zaqar *wants* to fit these cases,
>>>> and they want our feedback if they are missing anything to support
>>>> these.
>>> Yes, please. I'd go a bit further than this and say we're willing to
>>> help on getting this done as that'll be one of the things the team
>>> will focus on in the next cycle.
>>>
>>>> The biggest stretch here IMO is (4) because not all Zaqar storage
>>>> backends support strict ordering, but that can be fixed at the
>>>> application layer.
>>> Correct, right now the mongodb storage is the only one with support
>>> for FIFO. This has been made optional in Kilo.
>> And just to bring up this painful point again ;)
>>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/030510.html
>>
>> Please no mongodb ;)
>
> Folks wishing not to comply with the AGPL can choose not to do so: all
> they have to do is pay for a commercial license for MongoDB, and in any
> case this thread isn't about requiring a specific Zaqar storage backend.
>
> I just felt it was relevant that FIFO isn't taken for granted in Zaqar,
> but that we don't strictly need it in any case.
>

Ok but if only one backend in zaqar implements the feature or is 
scalable (which may not be the case in this discussion; since it appears 
FIFO isn't needed); then well u sorta have to use it (or pay as u said 
the commercial license). That sorta seems like a bad thing to force on 
people but to each there own...