Open Stack

By the way, just informing that a general session will be available
for zeromq driver. I'll provide the general architecture of the
current zeromq driver, pros and cons, potential improvements, use
cases for production.

Topic: Distributed Messaging System for OpenStack at Scale
Link: http://sched.co/2qpe

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from ozamiatin's message of 2015-03-24 18:57:25 +0200:
>> Hi,
>> +1 for subgroup meeting
>>
>> Does the separate repository mean separate library (python package) with
>> its own release cycles so on?
>
> Yes, although as an Oslo library it would be subject to our existing
> policies about versioning, releases, etc.
>
>>
>> As I can see the separate library makes it easy:
>>
>> 1) To support optional (for oslo.messaging) requirements specific for
>> zmq driver like pyzmq, redis so on
>> 2) Separate zmq testing. Now we have hacks like skip_test_if_nozmq or
>> something like that.
>>
>> Disadvantages are:
>> 1) Synchronization changes with oslo.messaging (Changes to the
>> oslo.messaging API may break all things)
>
> That's a good point. I think the neutron team is using a shim layer
> in-tree to mitigate driver API changes, with most of the driver
> implementation in a separate repository. Doing something like that here
> might make sense.
>
> That said, a separate repository is only one possible approach.
> Since most of the other Oslo cores seem to not like the idea of
> splitting the driver out, so we shouldn't assume it's going to
> happen.
>
>> 2) Additional effort for separate library management (releases so on)
>>
>> As for me, I like the idea of separate repo for zmq driver because it
>> gives more freedom for driver extension.
>> There are some ideas that we can have more than a single zmq driver
>> implementation in future.
>> At least we may have different versions one for HA and one for
>> scalability based on different zmq patterns.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Oleksii Zamiatin
>>
>> On 24.03.15 18:03, Ben Nemec wrote:
>> > On 03/24/2015 10:31 AM, Li Ma wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
>> >>> The goal we set at the Kilo summit was to have a group of people
>> >>> interested in zmq start contributing to the driver, and I had hoped to
>> >>> the library overall. How do we feel that is going?
>> >> That sounds great. I hope so.
>> >>
>> >>> One way to create a separate group to manage the zmq driver is to move
>> >>> it to a separate repository. Is the internal API for messaging drivers
>> >>> stable enough to do that?
>> >> Actually I'm not intended to move it to a separate repository. I just
>> >> want to make sure if it is possible to make a fixed online meeting for
>> >> zmq driver.
>> > And personally I'd prefer not to split the repo.  I'd rather explore the
>> > idea of driver maintainers whose +1 on driver code counts as +2, like we
>> > had/have with incubator.  Splitting the repo brings up some sticky
>> > issues with requirements syncs and such.  I'd like to think that with
>> > only three different drivers we don't need the overhead of managing
>> > separate repos, but maybe I'm being optimistic. :-)
>> >
>> > Kind of off topic since that's not what is being proposed here, but two
>> > different people have mentioned it so I wanted to note my preference in
>> > case it comes up again.
>> >
>> > -Ben
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________________________________
>> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



-- 

Li Ma (Nick)
Email: skywalker.nick at gmail.com