Open Stack

Hi Alex,

Searchlight uses port 9393 (it also made sense to us when we spun out of Glance!), so we would prefer it if there's another one that makes sense. Regarding the three hardest things in computer science, searchlight's already dealing with cache invalidation so I'll stay out of the naming discussion.

Thanks!

Steve

From: Alexander Tivelkov <ativelkov at mirantis.com<mailto:ativelkov at mirantis.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Friday, December 11, 2015 at 11:25 AM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: [openstack-dev] [glance][keystone][artifacts] Service Catalog name for Glance Artifact Repository API

Hi folks!

As it was decided during the Mitaka design summit, we are separating the experimental Artifact Repository API from the main Glance API. This API will have a versioning sequence independent from the main Glance API and will be run as a standalone optional service, listening on the port different from the standard glance-api port (currently the proposed default is 9393). Meanwhile, it will remain an integral part of the larger Glance project, sharing the database, implementation roadmap, development and review teams etc.

Since this API will be consumed by both end-users and other Openstack services, its endpoint should be discoverable via regular service catalog API. This rises the question: what should be the service name and service type for the appropriate entree in the service catalog?

We've came out with the idea to call the service "glare" (this is our internal codename for the artifacts initiative, being an acronym for "GLance Artifact REpository") and set its type to "artifacts". Other alternatives for the name may be "arti" or "glance_artifacts" and for the type - "assets" or "objects" (the latter may be confusing since swift's type is object-store, so I personally don't like it).

Well... we all know, naming is complicated... anyway, I'll appreciate any feedback on this. Thanks!

--
Regards,
Alexander Tivelkov