Open Stack

Somewhat off topic, but:

Yeah, some of us ops still use "tenant" when talking to users because tenant prompts a "whats that mean" question from users, and then we get a chance to explain it.

Users each have their own definition of "project", and when they see project they think they understand it without asking, leading to misunderstandings... :/

+1 for consistency amongst all openstack projects though.

Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________
From: Kevin Benton [blak111 at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 10:38 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Rename tenant to project: discussion

>Do you mean OpenStack developers, OpenStack customers, or OpenStack code?

All of them. Lots of us still say 'tenant' because that's what it was for quite a while. However, with keystone and the other projects referring to 'projects' which have 'project_ids', it creates inconsistency when Neutron is still based on 'tenant_id' (e.g. "does tenant_id mean user_id or project_id?").

>I'm not sure what you mean here.

Neutron is inconsistent with openstack now. We can't claim we are striving for consistency when using the term 'tenant', which is what you were implying with the reference to the rest of the networking world.

>Dariusz asked for feedback, and I believe it's valid and useful for me to give my intuitive feedback without having to read up on the history first.

It wasn't just the history, it's the whole justification for the move. I can definitely see why you would be against it though if you thought it was for no reason.


>and noted a couple of points:

>1. The text here twice says "multi-tenant isolation", not "multi-project
isolation".

>2. This whole renaming proposal apparently stems from an internal
confusion in keystone?

None of this matters. It was decided a long time ago to use 'project' and the other projects have switched.


On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Neil Jerram <Neil.Jerram at metaswitch.com<mailto:Neil.Jerram at metaswitch.com>> wrote:
On 04/12/15 18:03, Kevin Benton wrote:
> >The whole world says 'tenant' for the 'tenant' concept, particularly
> in the context of networking.  Changing to a different term is just
> silly.
>
> Except for the rest of OpenStack.

Do you mean OpenStack developers, OpenStack customers, or OpenStack code?

OpenStack developers mostly say 'tenant', I'd say from my following of
the ML.

All the OpenStack users/operators/customers that I've interacted with,
say 'tenant'.

As far as code is concerned, I'm fine with any initiative to align the
Neutron code better with other OpenStack code - but only so long as this
is change that doesn't cause pain and loss of back-compatibility.  Even
the merge pain from this change may be substantial, let alone that from
API changes.

> Consistency is the one argument we can't use as a reason not to switch
> to project.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

> Please read the blueprint and the email it links
> to: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/rename-tenant-to-project

Dariusz asked for feedback, and I believe it's valid and useful for me
to give my intuitive feedback without having to read up on the history
first.

Also it seems likely to me that the fact that this work hasn't happened,
for two years, is a reflection of most people not really wanting it.  I
thought it might be helpful to get that out in the open.

That said, I did look at some of the history -
https://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg09709.html:

> +1 for using the term "project" across all services. Projects provide
> multi-tenant isolation for resources across the cloud. Part of the reason
> we prefer "projects" in keystone is that "domains" conceptually provide
> multi-tenant isolation within keystone itself, so the overloaded "tenant"
> terminology gets really confusing.

and noted a couple of points:

1. The text here twice says "multi-tenant isolation", not "multi-project
isolation".

2. This whole renaming proposal apparently stems from an internal
confusion in keystone?

Regards,
    Neil


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



--
Kevin Benton
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151204/2bec741e/attachment.html>