Open Stack

On 11/12/2012 01:59 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
> <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 11/12/2012 05:54 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>     > Russell Bryant wrote:
>     >> This service would act as a proxy for nova-compute in a couple of
>     ways.
>     >>
>     >> 1) The nova-compute service would use it as a proxy to accomplish
>     >> certain tasks, such as targeted operations that need database access.
>     >>
>     >> 2) Over time, it would be used as a proxy for other services that
>     wish
>     >> to execute some sort of compute action.  For example, instead of
>     >> directly asking nova-compute to complete a long running
>     operation, the
>     >> nova-compute-proxy would take this operation and monitor its
>     progress.
>     >
>     > I'm not convinced nova-compute-proxy is the best name for this. It's a
>     > bit of a mouthful and IMHO proxying has a "one-way" meaning into it...
>     > If the proxying was only in one direction (compute -> db) that would
>     > make perfect sense but if you add other more complex abstractions
>     (like
>     > nodes -> compute), I think "proxy" is a bit reductive.
>     nova-controller ?
> 
>     nova-controller is fine with me ... naming is hard.
> 
> 
> the term 'controller' is already heavily used, with over 1k uses.
> 
> how about something along the lines alone of:
> 
> * nova-supervisor
> * nova-commandor
> * nova-director
> * nova-maestro

It may be heavily used, but it does make sense (at least to me).  Let's
not bikeshed too much over the name.

The direction where we're taking the architecture is the key to this
discussion.  It's easy to make changes to the plan right now.  It won't
be long before the cost of change will go *way* up.

-- 
Russell Bryant