On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Russell Bryant <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 02:36 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > The namespace relates to the API implementation inside the receiver. The > > way it currently works is the receiver subscribes to messages on a > > topic/exchange pair to have AMQP route messages to it, and then it looks > > inside the message for further dispatch to an object that knows about > > that API. That lets the nova API implementation be split up among > > different objects, for example. I'm not sure why it evolved that way, > > instead of using separate topics and having the messaging layer do all > > of the routing. Maybe we should take another look at that part of the > > new API design. > > In retrospect, yes, a separate topic would have worked. The namespace > was very convenient for the current nova implementation, but that > doesn't mean it was the best design. The code that sets up which topics > to consume from is very generic and applies to *all* services. So, > instead of reworking this to let it be different per-service, I did the > namespace thing, which worked without having to change any other nova code. > That's a completely understandable pragmatic solution. :-) Doug > > -- > Russell Bryant > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
