Open Stack

On 27.3.2014 18:21, Dougal Matthews wrote:
> On 27/03/14 15:56, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
>> Hi OpenStackers,
>>
>> User interface which is managing the OpenStack Infrastructure is
>> currently named Tuskar-UI because of historical reasons. Tuskar itself
>> is a small service, which is giving logic into generating and managing
>> Heat templates and helps user to model and manage his deployment. The
>> user interface, which is the subject of this call, is based on TripleO
>> approach and resembles OpenStack Dashboard (Horizon) with the way of how
>> it consumes other services. The UI is consuming not just Tuskar API, but
>> also Ironic (nova-baremetal), Nova (flavors), Ceilometer, etc in order
>> to design, deploy, manage and monitor your OpenStack deployments.
>> Because of this I find the name Tuskar-UI improper (it's more closer to
>> say TripleO-UI) and I would like the community to help to find better
>> name for it. After brainstorming, we can start voting on the final
>> project's name.
>>
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-management-ui-names
>
> Thanks for starting this.
>
> As a side, but related note, I think we should rename the Tuskar client
> to whatever name the Tuskar UI gets called. The client will eventually
> have feature parity with the UI and thus will have the same naming
> issues if it is to remain the "tuskarclient"
>
> Dougal

It might be good to do a similar thing as Keystone does. We could keep 
python-tuskarclient focused only on Python bindings for Tuskar (but keep 
whatever CLI we already implemented there, for backwards compatibility), 
and implement CLI as a plugin to OpenStackClient. E.g. when you want to 
access Keystone v3 API features (e.g. domains resource), then 
python-keystoneclient provides only Python bindings, it no longer 
provides CLI.

I think this is a nice approach because it allows the python-*client to 
stay thin for including within Python apps, and there's a common 
pluggable CLI for all projects (one top level command for the user). At 
the same time it would solve our naming problems (tuskarclient would 
stay, because it would be focused on Tuskar only) and we could reuse the 
already implemented other OpenStackClient plugins for anything on 
undercloud.

We previously raised that OpenStackClient has more plugins (subcommands) 
that we need on undercloud and that could confuse users, but i'd say it 
might not be as troublesome to justify avoiding the OpenStackClient way. 
(Even if we decide that this is a big problem after all and OSC plugin 
is not enough, we should still probably aim for separating TripleO CLI 
and Tuskarclient in the future.)

Jirka