On 01/22, Scott Seago wrote:
On 01/22/2013 08:01 AM, Michal Fojtik wrote:
>On 01/08, Hugh Brock wrote:
>
>Maybe a crazy idea, but Torquebox already includes messaging, background
>jobs, services and all other things mentioned in the original email.
>
>I have PoC of running Conductor inside Torquebox (using jRuby). I
>understand it might be a big step but definitely worth to at least
>investigate as an option :-)
>
>Just my .20cents.
>
> -- Michal
>
We've talked about using torquebox on-and-off over the last couple
years. The growing consensus there seems to be that we do want to be
able to run on it, but not at the expense of getting locked in to
using _only_ torquebox. In other words, the main issue with going to
Torquebox would be to make sure that we _don't_ start requiring the
use of services that only exist in torquebox -- so to use the above
services we'd have to make each one of them either pluggable (so we
could also use pure ruby alternatives) or optional.
Understood. I played with TB a bit and I the messaging and other
classes/models could be easily substituted by something else.
I mean this whole messaging thing could be very flexible (like using
something like 'Aeolus::Messaging' interface with :publish and :subscribe
methods. Then the messaging backend could be Torquebox or whatever else
that can handle publishing and subscribing ;-) (AMQP, etc)
-- Michal
Scott
--
Michal Fojtik <mfojtik(a)redhat.com>
Deltacloud API, CloudForms