On 12/11/2014 04:01 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:

On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Henry Gessau <ges...@cisco.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014, Mark McClain <m...@mcclain.xyz> wrote:

On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com
<mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I'm generally in favor of making name attributes opaque, utf-8 strings that
are entirely user-defined and have no constraints on them. I consider the
name to be just a tag that the user places on some resource. It is the
resource's ID that is unique.

I do realize that Nova takes a different approach to *some* resources,
including the security group name.

End of the day, it's probably just a personal preference whether names
should be unique to a tenant/user or not.

Maru had asked me my opinion on whether names should be unique and I
answered my personal opinion that no, they should not be, and if Neutron
needed to ensure that there was one and only one default security group for
a tenant, that a way to accomplish such a thing in a race-free way, without
use of SELECT FOR UPDATE, was to use the approach I put into the pastebin on
the review above.


I agree with Jay.  We should not care about how a user names the resource.
There other ways to prevent this race and Jay’s suggestion is a good one.

However we should open a bug against Horizon because the user experience there
is terrible with duplicate security group names.

The reason security group names are unique is that the ec2 api supports source
rule specifications by tenant_id (user_id in amazon) and name, so not enforcing
uniqueness means that invocation in the ec2 api will either fail or be
non-deterministic in some way.

So we should couple our API evolution to EC2 API then?

-jay

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to