alongside RabbitMQ, as Cue was never intended to be a "RabbitMQ
vending machine”.
Thank you,
- Min Pae
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstac
+1 Greg has been actively contributing to taskflow, both code, code review,
and general discussions and helping users. It would be great to have him
as a core.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Joshua Harlow
wrote:
> Greetings all stackers,
>
> I propose that we add Greg Hill[1] to the taskflow
Thanks Davanum :)
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> +1 from me Josh. welcome Min Pae.
>
> -- dims
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Joshua Harlow
> wrote:
> > Greetings all stackers,
> >
> > I propose that we add Min Pae (s
penstack-dev] [all] how to send messages (and events) to
> our users
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Min Pae wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> "an under-the-clould service" ? - That is not what I am after here.
>>>
>>> I think the thread went off on
>
> "an under-the-clould service" ? - That is not what I am after here.
>
> I think the thread went off on a tangent and this point got lost. A user
facing notification system absolutely should be a web centric protocol, as
I imagine one of the big consumers of such a system will be monitoring
das
+1 for using taskflow to implement workflows… workflow reliability is a
non-trivial problem that is best solved in one place imho
I have doubts as to whether AMQP is the right protocol for notifications.
Web service interfaces, thus far, being the “standard” interface for
interacting with Opensta
Uh sorry to nitpick, I think he said “let’s do away with” not “let’s use”
RPC-over-AMQP
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 08/04/15 16:38 +, Sandy Walsh wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> From: Clint Byrum
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015
:58 PM, Doug Hellmann
wrote:
> Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2015-03-23 10:40:09 -0700:
> > Greetings all stackers,
> >
> > I propose that we add Min Pae[1] to the taskflow-core team[2].
> >
> > Min has been actively contributing to taskflow for
The “making things more explicit” argument carried to its logical
conclusion would require that no “import … as …” ever be used either, and
we would have to use the full namespace/path for each module or function
being used. With allowing “import … as …” and the practice of extending
and monkey pa
I think most people would agree documentation is a good thing, and
consistency is generally a good thing… is there an accepted standard on
layout and minimum required fields?
If not, should there be?
For example
- Heading (short description)
- Description
- Inputs
- Input name + description
10 matches
Mail list logo
