On Feb 19, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Mark Washenberger wrote:
> For this reason, whatever name we choose I would hope we prefix it with
> "compute-" (i.e. compute-zone or compute-cell) so that we aren't letting
> language trick us out of some of our better implementation options, such as
> allowing deployers to scale compute, volume, network, and api resources
> separately.
I certainly don't want to preclude implementation options, and like the
clarification that this is an issue of scaling compute, but I have two problems
with the use of a prefix. First, it indirectly implies that scaling other
entities would be done in the same manner: e.g., that an api-cell would have
its resources independently deployed and with the inter-cell communication
design as compute-cell. If the desired outcome is that we encourage different
entities to implement their scaling independently and in the best manner for
that entity, having a common name would seem to encourage the opposite.
Second, it just seems cumbersome. We should ensure that documentation
about cells is clear that this is a way of scaling compute, but for referring
to them in code and in discussion, a simple name like 'zone' or 'cell' is
simpler and cleaner.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
