On December 9, 2014 at 10:43:51 AM, Adam Young (ayo...@redhat.com) wrote: On 12/09/2014 10:57 AM, Brad Topol wrote: +1! Makes sense.
--Brad Brad Topol, Ph.D. IBM Distinguished Engineer OpenStack (919) 543-0646 Internet: bto...@us.ibm.com Assistant: Kendra Witherspoon (919) 254-0680 From: Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainb...@gmail.com> To: Adam Young <ayo...@redhat.com>, "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <email@example.com> Date: 12/08/2014 06:07 PM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone] OSAAA-Policy I agree that this library should not have “Keystone” in the name. This is more along the lines of pycadf, something that is housed under the OpenStack Identity Program but it is more interesting for general use-case than exclusively something that is tied to Keystone specifically. openstack-policy? osid-policy? It really should not position itself as a standard. pycadf is more general purpose, but we are not looking to replace all of the rules languages out there. Just keep in mind we’re a policy rules enforcement library (with whatever name we end up with). This is obviously one of the hard computer science issues (naming things). I wasn’t clear, I didn’t mean to imply usage would be like pycadf (a more global standard), but just that it was not exclusive (at least within the OpenStack world) to be used with Keystone. Cheers, Morgan
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev