Open Stack

Hi David,

There needs to be some form of global hierarchy delimiter - well more to
the point there should be a common one across OpenStack installations to
ensure we are providing a good and consistent (and more to the point
inter-operable) experience to our users. I'm worried a custom defined
delimiter (even at the domain level) is going to make it difficult to
consume this data outside of the context of OpenStack (there are
applications that are written to use the APIs directly).

The alternative is to explicitly list the delimiter in the project (
e.g. {"hierarchy":
{"delim": ".", "domain.project.project2"}} ). The additional need to look
up the delimiter / set the delimiter when creating a domain is likely to
make for a worse user experience than selecting one that is not different
across installations.

--Morgan

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:19 PM, David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk>
wrote:

>
>
> On 03/06/2015 14:54, Henrique Truta wrote:
> > Hi David,
> >
> > You mean creating some kind of "delimiter" attribute in the domain
> > entity? That seems like a good idea, although it does not solve the
> > problem Morgan's mentioned that is the global hierarchy delimiter.
>
> There would be no global hierarchy delimiter. Each domain would define
> its own and this would be carried in the JSON as a separate parameter so
> that the recipient can tell how to parse hierarchical names
>
> David
>
> >
> > Henrique
> >
> > Em qua, 3 de jun de 2015 às 04:21, David Chadwick
> > <d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk <mailto:d.w.chadwick at kent.ac.uk>> escreveu:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 02/06/2015 23:34, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> >     > Hi Henrique,
> >     >
> >     > I don't think we need to specifically call out that we want a
> >     domain, we
> >     > should always reference the namespace as we do today. Basically,
> if we
> >     > ask for a project name we need to also provide it's namespace (your
> >     > option #1). This clearly lines up with how we handle projects in
> >     domains
> >     > today.
> >     >
> >     > I would, however, focus on how to represent the namespace in a
> single
> >     > (usable) string. We've been delaying the work on this for a while
> >     since
> >     > we have historically not provided a clear way to delimit the
> >     hierarchy.
> >     > If we solve the issue with "what is the delimiter" between domain,
> >     > project, and subdomain/subproject, we end up solving the usability
> >
> >     why not allow the top level domain/project to define the delimiter
> for
> >     its tree, and to carry the delimiter in the JSON as a new parameter.
> >     That provides full flexibility for all languages and locales
> >
> >     David
> >
> >     > issues with proposal #1, and not breaking the current behavior
> you'd
> >     > expect with implementing option #2 (which at face value feels to
> >     be API
> >     > incompatible/break of current behavior).
> >     >
> >     > Cheers,
> >     > --Morgan
> >     >
> >     > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Henrique Truta
> >     > <henriquecostatruta at gmail.com
> >     <mailto:henriquecostatruta at gmail.com>
> >     <mailto:henriquecostatruta at gmail.com
> >     <mailto:henriquecostatruta at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     Hi folks,
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     In Reseller[1], we’ll have the domains concept merged into
> >     projects,
> >     >     that means that we will have projects that will behave as
> domains.
> >     >     Therefore, it will be possible to have two projects with the
> same
> >     >     name in a hierarchy, one being a domain and another being a
> >     regular
> >     >     project. For instance, the following hierarchy will be valid:
> >     >
> >     >     A - is_domain project, with domain A
> >     >
> >     >     |
> >     >
> >     >     B - project
> >     >
> >     >     |
> >     >
> >     >     A - project with domain A
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     That hierarchy faces a problem when a user requests a project
> >     scoped
> >     >     token by name, once she’ll pass “domain = ‘A’” and
> >     project.name <http://project.name>
> >     >     <http://project.name> = “A”. Currently, we have no way to
> >     >     distinguish which project we are referring to. We have two
> >     proposals
> >     >     for this.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >      1.
> >     >
> >     >         Specify the whole hierarchy in the token request body,
> which
> >     >         means that when requesting a token for the child project
> for
> >     >         that hierarchy, we’ll have in the scope field something
> like:
> >     >
> >     >     "project": {
> >     >                    "domain": {
> >     >                        "name": "A"
> >     >                    },
> >     >                    "name": [“A”', “B”, “A”]
> >     >                }
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     If the project name is unique inside the domain (project “B”,
> for
> >     >     example), the hierarchy is optional.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >      2.
> >     >
> >     >         When a conflict happen, always provide a token to the child
> >     >         project. That means that, in case we have a name clashing
> as
> >     >         described, it will only be possible to get a project scoped
> >     >         token to the is_domain project through its id.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     The former will give us more clarity and won’t create any more
> >     >     restrictions than we already have. As a con, we currently are
> not
> >     >     able to get the names of projects in the hierarchy above a
> given
> >     >     project. Although the latter seems to hurt fewer people, it
> >     has the
> >     >     disadvantage of creating another set of constraints that might
> >     >     difficult the UX in the future.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     What do you think about that? We want to hear your oppinion,
> so we
> >     >     can discuss it at today’s Keystone Meeting.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     [1]
> >     >
> >
> https://github.com/openstack/keystone-specs/blob/master/specs/liberty/reseller.rst
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> >     >     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://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
> >     >
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
>  __________________________________________________________________________
> >     > 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
> >     >
> >
> >
>  __________________________________________________________________________
> >     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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150603/1758a206/attachment.html>