[openstack-dev] [Solum] CLI minimal implementation

Roshan Agrawal roshan.agrawal at RACKSPACE.COM
Tue Dec 3 13:51:15 UTC 2013

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbryant at redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 8:17 PM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum] CLI minimal implementation
> On 12/02/2013 07:03 PM, Roshan Agrawal wrote:
> > I have created a child blueprint to define scope for the minimal
> implementation of the CLI to consider for milestone 1.
> > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/solum/+spec/cli-minimal-implementatio
> > n
> >
> > Spec for the minimal CLI @
> > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Solum/FeatureBlueprints/CLI-minimal-im
> > plementation Etherpad for discussion notes:
> > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/MinimalCLI
> >
> > Would look for feedback on the ML, etherpad and discuss more in the
> weekly IRC meeting tomorrow.
> What is this R1.N syntax?  How does it relate to development milestones?
>  Does R1 mean a requirement for milestone-1?

These do not relate to development milestones. R1 is a unique identified for the given requirement. R1.x is a unique requirement Id for something that is a sub item of the top level requirement R1.
Is there a more "openstack standard way" for generating requirements Id?  
> For consistency, I would use commands like:
>    solum app-create
>    solum app-delete
>    solum assembly-create
>    solum assembly-delete
> instead of adding a space in between:
>    solum app create
> to be more consistent with other clients, like:
>    nova flavor-create
>    nova flavor-delete
>    glance image-create
>    glance image-delete

The current proposal is an attempt to be consistent with the direction for the "openstack one CLI". Adrian's addressed it in his other reply.

> I would make required arguments positional arguments.  So, instead of:
>    solum app-create --plan=planname
> do:
>    solum app-create <planname>

I will make this change unless hear objections 
> Lastly, everywhere you have a name, I would use a UUID.  Names shouldn't
> have to be globally unique (because of multi-tenancy).  UUIDs should always
> work, but you can support a name in the client code as a friendly shortcut,
> but it should fail if a unique result can not be resolved from the name.

Names do not have to be globally unique; just unique within the tenant namespace. The Name+tenant combination should map to a unique uuid. 
The CLI is a client tool, where as a user working with names is easier. We will support both, but start with Names (the friendly shortcut), and map it to uuid behind the scenes.

> --
> Russell Bryant
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list