[openstack-dev] Endpoint structure: a free-for-all
Chris Dent
cdent+os at anticdent.org
Fri Oct 21 11:22:52 UTC 2016
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016, Sean Dague wrote:
> The reason we have volume, volumev2, and volumev3 is that no one actually
> wants the unversioned volume endpoint. You can't do anything with it.
> Everyone wants the actual endpoint that has resources.
That's right, they do want the endpoint that has the resources, but
do they care about asking for a version? I'm not sure. I think they
just want the thing that's going to work and the version is
superfluous.
> We can solve this for all consumers by adding additional version field to the
> catalog. This was the direction we were headed last spring before the api-ref
> work took over.
I'd rather not see versions in the service catalog as a reified entity
because it increases the surface area of an endpoint request. I don't
want to have think which version I want. Or if I do, I want it to be
built into the service type. We want the service type to be the
entrypoint for endpoints...
In any case, just for reference, both the arch-wg and the api-wg
have expressed a lot of concern about and interest in the service
catalog (and the service authority idea that was bouncing around for
a while too). So I agree with everyone else who is saying "yeah,
it's time to make this better."
There are a lot of issues:
* how to deal with versions
* auth handling at the top-level endpoint
* service type value consistency amongst clouds
* public, internal, admin, whatever endpoints (can we make it so
there is one and only one‽)
* dynamic v static service catalogs in the face of different
contexts
* whatever else I'm forgetting right now because the coffee is weak
but I'm sure someone else remembers
--
Chris Dent ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ) https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list