Open Stack

On 02/16/2017 08:14 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Andrey Kurilin <akurilin at mirantis.com> wrote:
>> Yes, I forgot about it. But it changes nothing.
>> Custom implementation of particular service should cover the same API as an
>> official one. For me, as for user, it doesn't metter if there is Keystone or
>> MyAwesomeKeystone, I want just an service which implements Keystone
>> functionality.
>
> Actually it is the name field that we really do not need, nor want.

Yes, +100 to this.

> Its continued existence is mostly driven by a desire by deployers to
> brand their services, nothing should currently be using to as a
> selector.

Not sure that the name vs. type thing is actually driven by a deployer 
desire for branding. More likely it's just a vestige of a time when 
project developers didn't care or know all that much about the 
difference between type and name and just put whatever they thought made 
sense.

 >  The type field is what (should be) used in places like the
> base URL for services under a combined endpoint (ie,
> host/compute/v2.1/...) on a single port.

100% agree.

Best,
-jay