On 02/16/2017 11:21 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > 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.
+1 billion to all of this. __________________________________________________________________________ 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
