[openstack-dev] [all] [qpid] [zmq] [RabbitMQ] [oslo] Pending deprecation of driver(s).
flavio at redhat.com
Sat Jun 20 14:22:07 UTC 2015
On 19/06/15 15:01 +0000, Ken Giusti wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:15 AM Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 18/06/15 16:37 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-06-18 12:47:21 -0700:
> >> Hello! I know there's been a lot of churn and misunderstanding over the
> >> recent devstack changes, so I wanted to make it clear where we're going
> >> with messaging drivers now that the policy  was approved.
> >> According to the policy, drivers need to have at least 60% unit test
> >> coverage, and an integration test suite with at least 3 "popular"
> >> OpenStack projects, with preference for Nova, Cinder, and Glance, and
> >> individuals who will support said test suite.
> >> So, with that, the following is the status of each driver in tree right
> >> now:
> >> rabbit - 89% Unit test coverage. Being the default in devstack, and
> >> the default in nearly every project's config files, this one is heavily
> >> integration tested. There are multiple individuals who have proven to
> >> be able to debug failures related to RabbitMQ and are well known in
> >> the community.
> >> qpid - Unit test coverage is at 77%, so it passes that bar. I cannot
> >> find any integration testing being done, so it fails that. I also have
> >> not found anyone who will step up and support it. So this should be
> >> deprecated immediately.
> >+1 - I believe Ken and the other folks interested in this indicated that
> >the AMQP 1.0 driver should replace this one.
> The qpid driver should be deprecated, I'll be doing so in the next
> couple of days. Look forward to the patch.
> >Speaking of AMQP 1.0, you don't mention that one (it uses qpid, but is
> >separate from the driver named "qpid").
> I'd like to clarify something about the AMQP 1.0 driver. It's not a
> direct replacement for the qpidd one because it uses an entirely
> different protocol that recently became a standard.
> The reason I mention this is because it doesn't really require qpidd -
> not the double d - which is the broker daemon in the qpid family. I
> guess the confusion comes because the library it sits on top off is
> called qpid-proton.
> The qpid family is a set of tools that provide messaging capabilities.
> Among those you find qpidd (broker daemon), qpid-proton (amqp1.0
> library), qpid-dispatch (message router). It's confusing indeed.
> The importance of this distinction is that the amqp1.0 driver in
> oslo.messaging is intended as a protocol based driver and not
> targetting any technology. That is to say, that it could be written
> using a library that is not qpid-proton and it can talk to any message
> router or message broker that has support for amqp 1.0.
>+1 - yeah, we really shouldn't be considering the amqp1 driver as simply the
>"replacement qpid driver" - as Flavio points out it has the potential to
>provide compatibility with other messaging back ends.
>Clint - can you also include separate metrics for the amqp1 driver?
oslo_messaging/_drivers/protocols/amqp/controller 302 46 0 80 18 82%
oslo_messaging/_drivers/protocols/amqp/driver 134 13 0 28 6 88%
oslo_messaging/_drivers/protocols/amqp/drivertasks 52 5 0 8 2 85%
oslo_messaging/_drivers/protocols/amqp/eventloop 195 43 0 64 18 71%
> The ones we're targetting for the gate are rabbitmq (with the amqp 1.0
> plugin enabled) and qpidd.
> Since we're at it, let me share some updates:
> The driver unittests now run on every python2 job and the work on
> python3 is almost done. There's also a functional tests gate like we
> have for other drivers.
> The missing bit is an integration gate, which we'll be start working
> on in the next couple of days.
> Hope the above helps clarifying confusions around this driver.
> >> zmq - Unit test coverage is 74%. There are no currently active
> >> tests in OpenStack's infrastructure. Several individuals have self
> >> identified as being willing to work on creating them. We have not had
> >> the conversations yet about ongoing support. I recommend we continue to
> >> support their effort to become policy compliant. If that does not
> >> by M3 of Liberty, or if the "new" zmq driver appears with integration
> >> tests and support manpower, then we can deprecate at that time.
> >+1 - I know interest has been growing in this, so let's keep it going
> >and see where we end up.
> >> There's also the question of _how_ to deprecate them. I figure we should
> >> deprecate when the driver is loaded. Is there an existing mechanism
> >> that someone can point me to, or should I look at adding that to
> >> oslo.messaging/stevedore?
> >Normally we would recommend using versionutils from oslo.log, but we've
> >been trying to avoid making oslo.log a dependency of the oslo libs
> >because it uses some of them and that introduces cycles. Dims had a
> >patch recently that just used a DeprecationWarning, and relied on
> >oslo.log to redirect the warning to the log file. That seems like a good
> >pattern to repeat.
> Can we use debtcollector to decorate the main driver class? A warning
> will be printted every time an instance of such class is created
> (rather than at import time).
> If we don't want to add a dependency on that, we could just use a
> DeprecationWarning as Doug mentioned.
> >>  http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/openstack-specs/specs/
> >OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> Flavio Percoco
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the OpenStack-dev