[openstack-dev] [ceilometer] can we get ceilometermiddleware to use a config file instead of transport_url?

Doug Hellmann doug at doughellmann.com
Mon Jun 22 12:58:14 UTC 2015

Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2015-06-22 08:08:04 -0400:
> In extracting the contract for RPC backends in devstack (to have most of
> them live in plugins) one bit of an edge case was discovered.
> https://github.com/openstack-dev/devstack/blob/master/lib/swift#L388
> The connection to the RPC mechanism from ceilometermiddleware inside of
> swift uses a transport url instead of an oslo.messaging config block.
> ceilometermiddleware requires oslo.config and oslo.messaging, so it
> seems like it could use an oslo config block instead.
> One of the reasons why this seems like a better idea is that not all the
> properties of a messaging connection can be encoded in just a url today.
> For instance, Rabbit can specify heartbeating params -
> https://github.com/openstack-dev/devstack/blob/master/lib/rpc_backend#L282-L287,
> and zmq needs matchmaker info -
> https://github.com/openstack-dev/devstack/blob/master/lib/rpc_backend#L282-L287
> (Note: zmq is not currently able to be configured for swift + ceilometer
> today
> https://github.com/openstack-dev/devstack/blob/master/lib/rpc_backend#L282-L287
> and given what it needs in it's config, it's not clear that it would be
> reasonable to do so.)
> Could we deprecate the use of tranport_url in ceilometermiddleware and
> move to an actual oslo.config file somewhere instead? That would bring
> it in line with the rest of the RPC configuration for services, and
> ensure that all connections in a cluster have access to all the same
> options.

Swift doesn't use oslo.config, so we might need to make the middleware
support both configuration mechanisms.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list