Excerpts from Hayes, Graham's message of 2016-02-04 12:54:56 +0000: > On 04/02/2016 11:40, Sean Dague wrote: > > A few issues have crept up recently with the service catalog, API > > headers, API end points, and even similarly named resources in > > different resources (e.g. backup), that are all circling around a key > > problem. Distributed teams and naming collision. > > > > Every OpenStack project has a unique name by virtue of having a git > > tree. Once they claim 'openstack/foo', foo is theirs in the > > OpenStack universe for all time (or until trademarks say otherwise). > > Nova in OpenStack will always mean one project. > > > > There has also been a desire to replace project names with > > common/generic names, in the service catalog, API headers, and a few > > other places. Nova owns 'compute'. Except... that's only because we > > all know that it does. We don't *actually* have a registry for those > > values. > > > > So the code names are well regulated, the common names, that we > > encourage use of, are not. Devstack in tree code defines some > > conventions. However with the big tent, things get kind of squirely > > pretty quickly. Congress registering 'policy' as their endpoint type > > is a good example of that - > > https://github.com/openstack/congress/blob/master/devstack/plugin.sh#L147 > > > > Naming is hard. And trying to boil down complicated state machines > > to one or two word shiboliths means that inevitably we're going to > > find some words just keep cropping up: policy, flavor, backup, meter. > > We do however need to figure out a way forward. > > > > Lets start with the top level names (resource overlap cascades from > > there). > > > > What options do we have? > > > > 1) Use the names we already have: nova, glance, swift, etc. > > > > Upside, collision problem is solved. Downside, you need a secret > > decoder ring to figure out what project does what. > > > > 2) Have a registry of "common" names. > > > > Upside, we can safely use common names everywhere and not fear > > collision down the road. > > > > Downside, yet another contention point. > > > > A registry would clearly be under TC administration, though all the > > heavy lifting might be handed over to the API working group. I still > > imagine collision around some areas might be contentious. > > ++ to a central registry. It could easily be added to the projects.yaml > file, and is a single source of truth.
Although I realized that the projects.yaml file only includes official projects right now, which would mean new projects wouldn't have a place to register terms. Maybe that's a feature? > > I imagine collisions are going to be contentious - but having a central > source makes finding potential collisions much easier. > > > > > 3) Use either, inconsistently, hope for the best. (aka - status quo) > > > > Upside, no long mailing list thread to figure out the answer. > > Downside, it sucks. > > > > > > Are there other options missing? Where are people leaning at this > > point? > > > > Personally I'm way less partial to any particular answer as long as > > it's not #3. > > > > > > -Sean > > > __________________________________________________________________________ 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