On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Andrey Kurilin <akuri...@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. Its continued existence is mostly driven by a desire by deployers to brand their services, nothing should currently be using to as a selector. 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. For any alternate implementations of a service that a deployer wants to take the place of an OpenStack service this is how that is done seamlessly, no lying about the name like the browser User-Agent header nonsense. dt -- Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
