On 05/31/2015 05:38 PM, Jay Lau wrote:
Just want to use ML to trigger more discussion here. There are now
bugs/patches tracing this, but seems more discussions are needed before
we come to a conclusion.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/magnum/+bug/1453732
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/181839/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/181837/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/181847/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/181843/
IMHO, making the Bay/Baymodel name as a MUST will bring more flexibility
to end user as Magnum also support operating Bay/Baymodel via names and
the name might be more meaningful to end users.
Perhaps we can borrow some iead from nova, the concept in magnum can be
mapped to nova as following:
1) instance => bay
2) flavor => baymodel
So I think that a solution might be as following:
1) Make name as a MUST for both bay/baymodel
2) Update magnum client to use following style for bay-create and
baymodel-create: DO NOT add "--name" option
You should decide whether name would be unique -- either globally or
within a tenant.
Note that Nova's instance names (the display_name model field) are *not*
unique, neither globally nor within a tenant. I personally believe this
was a mistake.
The decision affects your data model and constraints.
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
