In general, I agree with Jay about the opaqueness of the names. I see however good reasons for having user-defined unique attributes (see Clint's point about idempotency). A middle ground here could be granting to the users the ability to specify the resource ID. A similar proposal was made some time ago by Eugene [0]
[0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-September/046150.html On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Mark McClain <m...@mcclain.xyz> wrote: > > > On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm generally in favor of making name attributes opaque, utf-8 strings > that are entirely user-defined and have no constraints on them. I consider > the name to be just a tag that the user places on some resource. It is the > resource's ID that is unique. > > I do realize that Nova takes a different approach to *some* resources, > including the security group name. > > End of the day, it's probably just a personal preference whether names > should be unique to a tenant/user or not. > > Maru had asked me my opinion on whether names should be unique and I > answered my personal opinion that no, they should not be, and if Neutron > needed to ensure that there was one and only one default security group for > a tenant, that a way to accomplish such a thing in a race-free way, without > use of SELECT FOR UPDATE, was to use the approach I put into the pastebin > on the review above. > > > I agree with Jay. We should not care about how a user names the > resource. There other ways to prevent this race and Jay’s suggestion is a > good one. > > mark > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
