On 02/16/2017 08:14 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Andrey Kurilin <akuri...@mirantis.com> wrote:
Yes, I forgot about it. But it changes nothing.
Custom implementation of particular service should cover the same API as an
official one. For me, as for user, it doesn't metter if there is Keystone or
MyAwesomeKeystone, I want just an service which implements Keystone
functionality.
Actually it is the name field that we really do not need, nor want.
Yes, +100 to this.
Its continued existence is mostly driven by a desire by deployers to
brand their services, nothing should currently be using to as a
selector.
Not sure that the name vs. type thing is actually driven by a deployer
desire for branding. More likely it's just a vestige of a time when
project developers didn't care or know all that much about the
difference between type and name and just put whatever they thought made
sense.
> The type field is what (should be) used in places like the
base URL for services under a combined endpoint (ie,
host/compute/v2.1/...) on a single port.
100% agree.
Best,
-jay
__________________________________________________________________________
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
