openstack team mailing list archive

[Justin Santa Barbara <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
> The usages system (which is dependant on this) ... It has not been coded
> yet, since it is dependant on this multitenant bp.  It *is* scheduled, and
> approved for the cactus release, for which merge-prop freeze is in ~2
> weeks.
>

Ouch.  Even though it's approved though, my understanding is that we're not
obligated to deliver it, because we're doing time-based releases, not
feature-based releases ?  (And that is a question - any PM types want to
chip in here?)



> As for the url,  I think we can wait for v1.1 and add it to the spec, and
> just infer the account ('project') for v1.0 by assuming that  users are not
> members of more than 1 account. (pretty much as eday suggested)
>

I think that may be the way to go given the deadline.


>  Can you explain what the proposed patch actually achieves?
>
> We need to bill by account. (which is not user, tho' users are linked to
> accounts)  Also, we need report usages like "what size/number of instances
> does account x have" so instances and other such things need to be linked to
> the account.  In nova the 'project' already exists, and is basically what we
> need for this. The instances, etc, belong to the project,  and  the users
> are linked to it, so we can link billable actions by a user to a project.
> The problem is that project is currently broken in the openstack api. It's
> hardcoded to "openstack".  This patch fixes that.  Also, for the purposes of
> development, testing, and small nova installs which might use the current
> builtin auth, the info (accounts/users) for that should be updatable via an
> admin api with a client like novaclient.  This patch adds that too. ("real"
> and/or large scale nova installs would update this info through some
> external auth or An Auth System To Be Named Later in nova, of course. )
>

I think these are all great features and are all needed, but passing the
project in the URL is controversial.  I think your patch would be much
simpler if you split it into 2 - passing the project "somehow", and the
other stuff.  I think the second should be uncontroversial, I think there's
a lot of debate on how to do the first. Then we can really focus on the core
of the controversial bit, and you may be unblocked from developing the
usages system.  I don't see the first one getting resolved until the
"Project Technical Lead" for nova is appointed, but that's just my opinion.

In terms of nomenclature, I think we should stop calling things "accounts"
if we mean "project" and not "user".  I'm hopelessly confused by that :-)