Open Stack

Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com> writes:

> Your words are more succinct than what I wrote, which is nice. I think
> we agree on the general direction for the time being.
>
> However, I don't think ZK will be a good choice for async event
> handling. I'd sooner expect MQTT to replace gear for that. It's worth
> noting that MQTT's protocol shares a lot in common with gearman and was
> created to do similar things.

You make some good points here, and in the other message, which have
both immediate and longer term aspects.

Your concern about using ZK for distributed ingestion is worth
considering as part of that discussion.  We've shelved it for the moment
as potentially distracting for v3 work.  But I think we can take your
point as being both that we should consider the potential issues there
when we discuss it, but also, for the moment, let's not presume in this
design that we're going to shove events into ZK in the future.

The other immediate aspect of this is that, if we are going to use this
framework for Github web hooks, we do need *some* answer of how to get
that info to the scheduler.

I'd say that since this is intended to be part of Zuul v3, and that we
have not taken any steps to reduce reliance on gearman in v3, that we
should go ahead and say that when the webhooks move to this framework,
they should submit their events to the scheduler via gearman.  The
scheduler already accepts administrative events ("zuul enqueue") over
gearman; this is not a stretch.

I think that should clarify this aspect of this proposal for now, and
leaves us to consider the general question of distributed event
ingestion later.

-Jim