On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Lennart Regebro <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not so sure about the idea that we can't "hijack" other projects > namespaces. If only ironic is allowed to use the prefix "baremetal", > then the prefix should not have been "baremetal" in the first place, > it should have been "ironic". Which of course means it would just be a > replacement for the ironic client, making these whole namespaces > pointless. > I would like to paraphrase this a bit and say that the point of namespacing prefixes is for disambiguation, not to identify which API or project 'owns' a resource. Users should not need to know or care about that. Thus far, most plugins have simply used their project name (BAD) or SC endpoint type (still not great) for this. I would also say that the whole exercise is not pointless even if there winds up being 'overcloud' and 'undercloud' top-level commands as the rest of the exercise in consistency is well worth the effort for our users. I do agree that many of these should not be in baremetal at all as > they are not baremetal specific, but tripleo-things, and hence is a > part of the overcloud/undercloud namespace, and that in the minimum > teaches us to be more careful with the namespaces. We should probably > double-check with others first. > > Oh, sorry, I mean "We should probably increase cross-team > communication visibility to synchronize the integrational aspects of > the openstack client project, going forward." > We do keep track of the resources being used by plugins in the OSC docs as a best-effort central coordination. This is strictly opt-in as OSC has no way (yet?) to enforce who 'owns' which resource name. dt -- Dean Troyer [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
