[openstack-dev] [osc][openstackclient][zun] Collision on the keyword 'container'

Ian Cordasco sigmavirus24 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 20 21:05:57 UTC 2016

-----Original Message-----
From: Hongbin Lu <hongbin.lu at huawei.com>
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
<openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Date: December 20, 2016 at 15:01:33
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
<openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Subject:  [openstack-dev] [osc][openstackclient][zun] Collision on the
keyword 'container'

> Hi OpenStackClients Team,
> I am from the Zun team, and my team encountered a name collision issue when implementing
> a OSC plugin [1]. We wanted to use the keyword 'container' to represent a linux container
> used to host a containerized application. In particular, the commands our contributor
> wanted to implement was listed in the etherpad [2]. Unfortunately, this keyword has
> already been taken in OSC, so we need to figure out a short-term walk round and a long-term
> solution. Below are the short-term solution I can think of:
> * openstack appcontainer
> * openstack linuxcontainer
> * openstack zun container
> * openstack containerservice container
> * openstack containermgmt container
> In the long-term, I am going to propose to follow the style of AWS CLI, that is prefixing
> each command with a project name. For example:
> $ openstack swift container
> $ openstack zun container
> $ openstack barbican container

I would be strongly opposed to using project names (which are already
confusing enough to users) in the openstackcli. That's just taking
good UX and throwing it out.

> Or
> $ openstack objectstore container

$ openstack object container

That could work, but forcing users to have to learn a new path to the
same functionality is incredibly bad.

> $ openstack container container

And this explains to me, rather well, why this would be a bad idea.
"container container" is terrible UX.

> $ openstack secret container

I don't think using service names is going to work better either,
especially provided that to retrofit that would be a *severe* breaking

> Thoughts?
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/411786/
> [2] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/zunclient_openstack-client-cli
> Best regards,
> Hongbin
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Ian Cordasco

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list