Open Stack

On 02/16/2017 11:21 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> 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.

+1 billion to all of this.