Open Stack

On 01/27/2016 08:31 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:47 PM, michael mccune <msm at redhat.com
> <mailto:msm at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     i am not convinced that we would ever need to have a standard on how
>     these names are chosen for the header values, or if we would even
>     need to have header names that could be deduced. for me, it would be
>     much better for the projects use an identifier that makes sense to
>     them, *and* for each project to have good api documentation.
>
>
> I think we would be better served in selecting these things thinking
> about the API consumers first.  We already have  enough for them to wade
> through, the API-WG is making great gains in herding those particular
> cats, I would hate to see giving back some of that here.

Amen.

>     so, instead of using examples where we have header names like
>     "OpenStack-Some-[SERVICE_TYPE]-Header", maybe we should suggest
>     "OpenStack-Some-[SERVICE_TYPE or PROJECT_NAME]-Header" as our guideline.
>
> I think the listed reviews have it right, only referencing service
> type.  We have attempted to reduce the visible surface area of project
> names in a LOT of areas, I do not think this is one that needs to be an
> exception to that.
>
> Projects will do what they are going to do, sometimes in spite of
> guidelines.  This does not mean that the guidelines need to bend to
> match that practice when it is at odds with larger concerns.
>
> In this case, the use of service type as the primary identifier for
> endpoints and API services is well established, and is how the service
> catalog has and will always work.

+100.

-jay