On 04/08/2016 11:12 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
Aaaaaahahahahhahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahhahaha
This is the indication that this thread wins.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:23 AM Lance Bragstad <lbrags...@gmail.com <mailto:lbrags...@gmail.com>> wrote: In response to point 2.2, the progress with Fernet in the last year has exposed performance pain points in keystone. Finding sensible solutions for those issues is crucial in order for people to adopt Fernet. In Mitaka we had a lot of discussion that resulted in landing several performance related patches. As of today, we're already focusing on scalability, performance, and simplicity. I'm afraid a project split would only delay the work we're doing right now. On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainb...@gmail.com <mailto:morgan.fainb...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:29 PM, David Stanek <dsta...@dstanek.com <mailto:dsta...@dstanek.com>> wrote: On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:26 PM Boris Pavlovic <bpavlo...@mirantis.com <mailto:bpavlo...@mirantis.com>> wrote: 2) This will reduce scope of Keystone, which means 2 things 2.1) Smaller code base that has less issues and is simpler for testing 2.2) Keystone team would be able to concentrate more on fixing perf/scalability issues of authorization, which is crucial at the moment for large clouds. I'm not sure that this is entirely true. If we truly just split up the project, meaning we don't remove functionality, then we'd have the same number of bugs and work. It would just be split across two projects. I think the current momentum to get out of the authn business is still our best bet. As Steve mentioned this is ongoing work. -- David What everyone else said... but add in the need then to either pass the AuthN over to the Assignment/AuthZ api or bake it in (via apache module?) and we are basically where we are now. Steve alluded to splitting out the authentication bit (but not to a new service), the idea there is to make it so AuthN is not part of the CRUD interface of the server. All being said, AuthN and AuthZ are going to be hard to split into two separate services and with exception of the unfounded "scope" benefit, we already can handle most of what you've proposed with zero changes to Keystone. Cheers, --Morgan __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ 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
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
