Open Stack

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Lennart Regebro <lregebro at redhat.com>
wrote:

> I'm not so sure about the idea that we can't "hijack" other projects
> namespaces. If only ironic is allowed to use the prefix "baremetal",
> then the prefix should not have been "baremetal" in the first place,
> it should have been "ironic". Which of course means it would just be a
> replacement for the ironic client, making these whole namespaces
> pointless.
>

I would like to paraphrase this a bit and say that the point of namespacing
prefixes is for disambiguation, not to identify which API or project 'owns'
a resource.  Users should not need to know or care about that.  Thus far,
most plugins have simply used their project name (BAD) or SC endpoint type
(still not great) for this.

I would also say that the whole exercise is not pointless even if there
winds up being 'overcloud' and 'undercloud'  top-level commands as the rest
of the exercise in consistency is well worth the effort for our users.

I do agree that many of these should not be in baremetal at all as
> they are not baremetal specific, but tripleo-things, and hence is a
> part of the overcloud/undercloud namespace, and that in the minimum
> teaches us to be more careful with the namespaces. We should probably
> double-check with others first.
>
> Oh, sorry, I mean "We should probably increase cross-team
> communication visibility to synchronize the integrational aspects of
> the openstack client project, going forward."
>

We do keep track of the resources being used by plugins in the OSC docs as
a best-effort central coordination.  This is strictly opt-in as OSC has no
way (yet?) to enforce who 'owns' which resource name.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151110/7dffadc2/attachment.html>