On 2014-12-16 12:07 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
So I think this is something we really should get agreement on across
the open stack API first before flipping back and forth on a case by
case basis.
Personally I think we should be using uuids for uniqueness and leave any
extra restrictions to a
Looking at all comments it seems that existing change is reasonable. I will
update it with link to this thread.
Thanks!
Regards,
Ann Kamyshnikova
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Rochelle Grober rochelle.gro...@huawei.com
wrote:
Morgan Fainberg [mailto:morgan.fainb...@gmail.com] *on*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I was (rightfully) asked to share my comments on the matter that I
left in gerrit here. See below.
On 12/12/14 22:40, Sean Dague wrote:
On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
- Original Message -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I was (rightfully) asked to share my comments on the matter that I
left in gerrit here. See below.
On 12/12/14 22:40, Sean Dague wrote:
On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27
On Dec 12, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM,
I think the point made is that the behaviour is currently inconsistent and
not user friendly.
Regardless of that, I would like to point that technically this kind of
change is backward incompatible and so it should not be simply approved by
popular acclamation.
I will seek input from the API WG
On Dec 15, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Assaf Muller amul...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I was (rightfully) asked to share my comments on the matter that I
left in gerrit here. See below.
On 12/12/14 22:40, Sean Dague wrote:
So I think this is something we really should get agreement on across the
open stack API first before flipping back and forth on a case by case
basis.
Personally I think we should be using uuids for uniqueness and leave any
extra restrictions to a ui layer if really required. If we try to have
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 23:05:01, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
When no security group is provided, Nova will default to the default
security group. However due to the fact 2 security groups had the same
name, nova-compute got confused, put the instance in ERROR state and
logged this traceback [1]:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 12/12/14 00:05, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
We recently had an issue in production where a user had 2
default security groups (for reasons we have yet to identify).
This is probably the result of the race condition that is discussed in
the thread:
Thanks everyone for sharing yours opinion! I will create a separate change
with another option that was suggested.
Yes, I'm currently working on this bug
https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1194579.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka ihrac...@redhat.com
wrote:
-BEGIN
On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/2014 04:01 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at
In general, I agree with Jay about the opaqueness of the names. I see
however good reasons for having user-defined unique attributes (see
Clint's point about idempotency).
A middle ground here could be granting to the users the ability to specify
the resource ID.
A similar proposal was made some
If we allow resource IDs to be set they will no longer be globally unique.
I'm not sure if this will impact anything directly right now, but it might
be something that impacts tools orchestrating multiple neutron deployments
(e.g. cascading, cells, etc).
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Ivar
On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/2014 04:01 PM,
On 2014-12-12 4:40 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
While there is a good case for the UX of unique names - it also makes
orchestration via tools like puppet a heck of a lot simpler - the fact is that
most OpenStack resources do not require unique names. That being the case, why
would we want security
On Friday, December 12, 2014, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net javascript:;
wrote:
On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Dec 11,
On 12/12/2014 05:00 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
On Friday, December 12, 2014, Sean Dague s...@dague.net
mailto:s...@dague.net wrote:
On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net
javascript:; wrote:
On 12/11/2014
Morgan Fainberg [mailto:morgan.fainb...@gmail.com] on Friday, December 12, 2014
2:01 PM wrote:
On Friday, December 12, 2014, Sean Dague
s...@dague.netmailto:s...@dague.net wrote:
On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.netjavascript:;
Hello everyone!
In neutron there is a rather old bug [1] about adding uniqueness for
security group name and tenant id. I found this idea reasonable and started
working on fix for this bug [2]. I think it is good to add a
uniqueconstraint because:
1) In nova there is such constraint for security
On 12/11/2014 07:22 AM, Anna Kamyshnikova wrote:
Hello everyone!
In neutron there is a rather old bug [1] about adding uniqueness for
security group name and tenant id. I found this idea reasonable and
started working on fix for this bug [2]. I think it is good to add a
uniqueconstraint
On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes 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
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
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
On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
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 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
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,
On 2014-12-11 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes 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
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-12-11 05:43:46 -0800:
On 12/11/2014 07:22 AM, Anna Kamyshnikova wrote:
Hello everyone!
In neutron there is a rather old bug [1] about adding uniqueness for
security group name and tenant id. I found this idea reasonable and
started working on
First, I agree that it's much friendlier to have unique security group names
and not have to use UUIDs since when there is a need for more than a default,
the Tennant admin will want to be able to easily track info related to it, plus
in the GUI, if it allows a new one to be created, it should
30 matches
Mail list logo
