Open Stack

On 07/17/2012 10:39 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
> I don't think either of you is wrong. I too think that in cases where 
> it's not easy to find a majority, it might make sense to just do what 
> the other projects are doing.
> Unfortunately for us, Keystone adopts the "name is unique" phylosophy, 
> whereas nova adopts "name is a label".
>
> Is it worth considering renaming the attribute to 'name-label' and let 
> it be non-unique and non-mandatory?

This works for me.
>
> Salvatore
>
> On 16 July 2012 22:27, Dan Wendlandt <dan at nicira.com 
> <mailto:dan at nicira.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Gary, this is an example of when I wish openstack APIs had a
>     "style-guide" to try to ensure some consistency across projects.
>
>     For those new to the conversation, the original topic of
>     discussion is whether "names" for API objects should be forced to
>     be unique (presumably within a tenant?) or allowed to be
>     duplicated.  The general feeling from the meeting was that since
>     UUIDs are unique, the API itself would not enforce name
>     uniqueness.  That also led to the point that names should then be
>     optional, since they are really for informational/display purposes
>     only.
>
>     Personally, I tend to think that "description" tends to imply a
>     sentence "private network for tenant1", rather than a simple name
>     "tenant1-net".  There's also the fact that other openstack
>     services like nova and glance use the term "name" with the similar
>     (I believe) model that a name need not be unique.
>
>     Would be curious to hear what others think.  The only thing I'm
>     quite sure about is that there would be value in creating some
>     notion of "openstack API consistency best practices" to give a
>     more cohesive feel to APIs across different projects in the
>     openstack family.
>
>     Dan
>
>
>     On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Gary Kotton <gkotton at redhat.com
>     <mailto:gkotton at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>         If the name is intended to be a description then how about the
>         idea of calling the field "description" instead. This is far
>         more descriptive and does not lend the user to think that this
>         should be unique.
>         Thanks
>         Gary
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>         <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>         Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
>         <mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
>         Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>         <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>         More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>     Dan Wendlandt
>     Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com <http://www.nicira.com>
>     twitter: danwendlandt
>     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>     <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>     Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
>     <mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
>     Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>     <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>     More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20120717/d205460a/attachment.html>