So I think this is something we really should get agreement on across the open stack API first before flipping back and forth on a case by case basis.
Personally I think we should be using uuids for uniqueness and leave any extra restrictions to a ui layer if really required. If we try to have name uniqueness then "test " should be considered the same as " test" as " test " and it introduces all sorts of slightly different combos that look the same except under very close comparison. Add unicode for extra fun. Chris On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 at 7:24 am, Maru Newby <ma...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Dec 15, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Assaf Muller <amul...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA512 > >> > >> I was (rightfully) asked to share my comments on the matter that I > >> left in gerrit here. See below. > >> > >> On 12/12/14 22:40, Sean Dague wrote: > >>> On 12/12/2014 01:05 PM, Maru Newby wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 12/11/2014 04:16 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > >>>>>> On 12/11/2014 04:07 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > >>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2014, at 1:04 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 12/11/2014 04:01 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Henry Gessau > >>>>>>>>> <ges...@cisco.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014, Mark McClain <m...@mcclain.xyz> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2014, at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes > >>>>>>>>>>>> <jaypi...@gmail.com <mailto: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. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> However we should open a bug against Horizon because > >>>>>>>>>> the user experience there is terrible with duplicate > >>>>>>>>>> security group names. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The reason security group names are unique is that the > >>>>>>>>> ec2 api supports source rule specifications by > >>>>>>>>> tenant_id (user_id in amazon) and name, so not > >>>>>>>>> enforcing uniqueness means that invocation in the ec2 > >>>>>>>>> api will either fail or be non-deterministic in some > >>>>>>>>> way. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So we should couple our API evolution to EC2 API then? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -jay > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No I was just pointing out the historical reason for > >>>>>>> uniqueness, and hopefully encouraging someone to find the > >>>>>>> best behavior for the ec2 api if we are going to keep the > >>>>>>> incompatibility there. Also I personally feel the ux is > >>>>>>> better with unique names, but it is only a slight > >>>>>>> preference. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry for snapping, you made a fair point. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yeh, honestly, I agree with Vish. I do feel that the UX of > >>>>> that constraint is useful. Otherwise you get into having to > >>>>> show people UUIDs in a lot more places. While those are good > >>>>> for consistency, they are kind of terrible to show to people. > >>>> > >>>> While there is a good case for the UX of unique names - it also > >>>> makes orchestration via tools like puppet a heck of a lot simpler > >>>> - the fact is that most OpenStack resources do not require unique > >>>> names. That being the case, why would we want security groups to > >>>> deviate from this convention? > >>> > >>> Maybe the other ones are the broken ones? > >>> > >>> Honestly, any sanely usable system makes names unique inside a > >>> container. Like files in a directory. > >> > >> Correct. Or take git: it does not use hashes to identify objects, right? > >> > >>> In this case the tenant is the container, which makes sense. > >>> > >>> It is one of many places that OpenStack is not consistent. But I'd > >>> rather make things consistent and more usable than consistent and > >>> less. > >> > >> Are we only proposing to make security group name unique? I assume > >> that, since that's what we currently have in review. The change would > >> make API *more* inconsistent, not less, since other objects still use > >> uuid for identification. > >> > >> You may say that we should move *all* neutron objects to the new > >> identification system by name. But what's the real benefit? > >> > >> If there are problems in UX (client, horizon, ...), we should fix the > >> view and not data models used. If we decide we want users to avoid > >> using objects with the same names, fine, let's add warnings in UI > >> (probably with an option to disable it so that we don't push the > >> validation into their throats). > >> > >> Finally, I have concern about us changing user visible object > >> attributes like names during db migrations, as it's proposed in the > >> patch discussed here. I think such behaviour can be quite unexpected > >> for some users, if not breaking their workflow and/or scripts. > >> > >> My belief is that responsible upstream does not apply ad-hoc changes > >> to API to fix a race condition that is easily solvable in other ways > >> (see Assaf's proposal to introduce a new DefaultSecurityGroups table > >> in patchset 12 comments). > >> > > > > As usual you explain yourself better than I can... I think my main > > original objection to the patch is that it feels like an accidental > > API change to fix a bug. If you want unique naming: > > 1) We need to be consistent across different resources > > 2) It needs to be in a dedicate change, and perhaps blueprint > > > > Since there's conceivable alternative solutions to the bug that aren't > > substantially more costly or complicated, I don't see why we would pursue > > the proposed approach. > > > +1 > > Regardless of the merits of security groups having unique names, I don’t > think it is a change that should be slipped in as part of a bugfix. If we > want to see this kind of API-modifying change introduced in Neutron (or any > other OpenStack project), there is a process that needs to be followed. > > > > Maru > > > > > >> As for the whole object identification scheme change, for this to > >> work, it probably needs a spec and a long discussion on any possible > >> complications (and benefits) when applying a change like that. > >> > >> For reference and convenience of readers, leaving the link to the > >> patch below: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135006/ > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> -Sean > >>> > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) > >> > >> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUjxI1AAoJEC5aWaUY1u579M8H/RC+M7/9YYDClWRjhQLBNqEq > >> 0pMxURZi8lTyDmi+cXA7wq1QzgOwUqWnJnOMYzq8nt9wLh8cgasjU5YXZokrqDLw > >> zEu/a1Cd9Alp4iGYQ6upw94BptGrMvk+XwTedMX9zMLf0od1k8Gzp5xYH/GXInN3 > >> E+wje40Huia0MmLu4i2GMr/13gD2aYhMeGxZtDMcxQsF0DBh0gy8OM9pfKgIiXVM > >> T65nFbXUY1/PuAdzYwMto5leuWZH03YIddXlzkQbcZoH4PGgNEE3eKl1ctQSMGoo > >> bz3l522VimQvVnP/XiM6xBjFqsnPM5Tc7Ylu942l+NfpfcAM5QB6Ihvw5kQI0uw= > >> =gIsu > >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
