Excerpts from Douglas Mendizabal's message of 2014-06-09 16:08:02 -0700: > Hi all, > > I’m strongly in favor of having immutable TLS-typed containers, and very > much opposed to storing every revision of changes done to a container. I > think that storing versioned containers would add too much complexity to > Barbican, where immutable containers would work well. >
Agree completely. Create a new one for new values. Keep the old ones while they're still active. > > I’m still not sold on the idea of registering services with Barbican, even > though (or maybe especially because) Barbican would not be using this data > for anything. I understand the problem that we’re trying to solve by > associating different resources across projects, but I don’t feel like > Barbican is the right place to do this. > Agreed also, this is simply not Barbican or Neutron's role. Be a REST API for secrets and networking, not all dancing all singing nannies that prevent any possibly dangerous behavior with said API's. > It seems we’re leaning towards option #2, but I would argue that > orchestration of services is outside the scope of Barbican’s role as a > secret-store. I think this is a problem that may need to be solved at a > higher level. Maybe an openstack-wide registry of dependend entities > across services? An optional openstack-wide registry of depended entities is called "Heat". _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
