On 05/14/2018 05:46 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Lance Bragstad's message of 2018-05-14 15:20:42 -0500: >> On 05/14/2018 02:24 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> Excerpts from Lance Bragstad's message of 2018-05-14 13:13:51 -0500: >>>> On 03/19/2018 09:22 AM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Doug Hellmann <d...@doughellmann.com >>>>> <mailto:d...@doughellmann.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Both of those are good ideas. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Agree. I like the socket idea a bit more as I can imagine some >>>>> operators don't want config file changes automatically applied. Do we >>>>> want to choose one to standardize on or allow each project (or >>>>> operators, via config) the choice? >>>> Just to recap, keystone would be listening for when it's configuration >>>> file changes, and reinitialize the logger if the logging settings >>>> changed, correct? >>> Sort of. >>> >>> Keystone would need to do something to tell oslo.config to re-load the >>> config files. In services that rely on oslo.service, this is handled >>> with a SIGHUP handler that calls ConfigOpts.mutate_config_files(), so >>> for Keystone you would want to do something similar. >>> >>> That is, you want to wait for an explicit notification from the operator >>> that you should reload the config, and not just watch for the file to >>> change. We could talk about using file modification as a trigger, but >>> reloading is something that may need to be staged across several >>> services in order so we chose for the first version to make the trigger >>> explicit. Relying on watching files will also fail when the modified >>> data is not in a file (which will be possible when we finish the driver >>> work described in >>> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/oslo-specs/specs/queens/oslo-config-drivers.html). >> Hmm, these are good points. I wonder if just converting to use >> oslo.service would be a lower bar then? > I thought keystone had moved away from that direction toward deploying > only within Apache? I may be out of touch, or have misunderstood > something, though.
Oh - never mind... For some reason I was thinking there was a way to use oslo.service and Apache. Either way, I'll do some more digging before tomorrow. I have this as a topic on keystone's meeting agenda to go through our options [0]. If we do come up with something that doesn't involve intercepting signals (specifically for the reason noted by Kristi and Jim in the mod_wsgi documentation), should the community goal be updated to include that option? Just thinking that we can't be the only service in this position. [0] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/keystone-weekly-meeting > > Doug > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
