openstack team mailing list archive
-
openstack team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #14753
Re: [Quantum] Network, Subnet and Port names
-
To:
openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
From:
Jay Pipes <jaypipes@xxxxxxxxx>
-
Date:
Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:31:11 -0400
-
In-reply-to:
<CA+0XJm-8SJvxU6KsZjPrhFB7OWhW5QAUumGBPX4n=OcZ8+ttKw@mail.gmail.com>
-
User-agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
On 07/17/2012 01:27 AM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
> Hi Gary, this is an example of when I wish openstack APIs had a
> "style-guide" to try to ensure some consistency across projects.
Yeah, we actually discussed this a long time ago on the PPB and, IIRC,
the decision was made to not have some strict API committee or dictator
and instead rely on PTLs to socialize the API with the community and
other PTLs and find common ground where possible.
> For those new to the conversation, the original topic of discussion is
> whether "names" for API objects should be forced to be unique
> (presumably within a tenant?) or allowed to be duplicated. The general
> feeling from the meeting was that since UUIDs are unique, the API itself
> would not enforce name uniqueness. That also led to the point that
> names should then be optional, since they are really for
> informational/display purposes only.
>
> Personally, I tend to think that "description" tends to imply a sentence
> "private network for tenant1", rather than a simple name "tenant1-net".
> There's also the fact that other openstack services like nova and
> glance use the term "name" with the similar (I believe) model that a
> name need not be unique.
Yes, I'm in the "Name is merely a label" camp. Not unique, not mandatory.
> Would be curious to hear what others think. The only thing I'm quite
> sure about is that there would be value in creating some notion of
> "openstack API consistency best practices" to give a more cohesive feel
> to APIs across different projects in the openstack family.
There could be some value there, sure.
Best,
-jay
> Dan
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Gary Kotton <gkotton@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:gkotton@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> If the name is intended to be a description then how about the idea
> of calling the field "description" instead. This is far more
> descriptive and does not lend the user to think that this should be
> unique.
> Thanks
> Gary
>
> _________________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~__openstack
> <https://launchpad.net/~openstack>
> Post to : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~__openstack
> <https://launchpad.net/~openstack>
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/__ListHelp
> <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dan Wendlandt
> Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com <http://www.nicira.com>
> twitter: danwendlandt
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
References