Open Stack

On 07/08/2014 08:30 AM, Day, Phil wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, forgot to put this in my previous message.  I've been
>>> advocating the ability to use names instead of UUIDs for server
>>> groups pretty much since I saw them last year.
>>>
>>> I'd like to just enforce that server group names must be unique
>>> within a tenant, and then allow names to be used anywhere we
>>> currently have UUIDs (the way we currently do for instances). If
>>> there is ambiguity (like from admin doing an operation where
>>> there are multiple groups with the same name in different
>>> tenants) then we can have it fail with an appropriate error
>>> message
>>
>> The question here is not just about server group names, but all
>> names. Having one name be unique and not another (instance names),
>> is a recipe for a poor user experience. Unless there is a strong
>> reason why our current model is bad ( non unique names), I don't
>> think this type of change is worth the impact on users.
>
> I think in general we've moved away from using names at the API layer
> and pushed name to UUID translation into the clients for a better
> command line experience, which seems like the right thing to do.

Okay, this was the piece that I was missing.  As long as we still have 
support for server group names in the clients then I'm fine with having 
the REST API use UUIDs.

Consider my concerns withdrawn.

Chris