Open Stack

On 02/04/2016 10:31 AM, Nick Chase wrote:
> What about using a combination of two word names, and generic names. For
> example, you might have 
> 
>     cinder-blockstorage
> 
> and
> 
>     foo-blockstorage
> 
> The advantage there is that we don't need to do the thesaurus.com
> <http://thesaurus.com> thing, but also, it enables to specify just
> 
>     blockstorage
> 
> via a registry.  The advantage of THAT is that if a user wants to change
> out the "default" blockstorage engine (for example) we could provide
> them with a way to do that.  The non-default would have to support the
> same API, of course, but it definitely fits with the "pluggable" nature
> of OpenStack.

This feels a bit like all the downsides of #1 (people have to know about
codenames, and make projects know about the codenames of other projects)
+ all the downsides of #2 (we still need a naming registry).

I do agree it is a 4th option, but the downsides seem higher than either
#1 or #2.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net