On 02/04/2016 10:31 AM, Nick Chase wrote:
> What about using a combination of two word names, and generic names. For
> example, you might have
>
> cinder-blockstorage
>
> and
>
> foo-blockstorage
>
> The advantage there is that we don't need to do the thesaurus.com
> <http://thesaurus.com> thing, but also, it enables to specify just
>
> blockstorage
>
> via a registry. The advantage of THAT is that if a user wants to change
> out the "default" blockstorage engine (for example) we could provide
> them with a way to do that. The non-default would have to support the
> same API, of course, but it definitely fits with the "pluggable" nature
> of OpenStack.
This feels a bit like all the downsides of #1 (people have to know about
codenames, and make projects know about the codenames of other projects)
+ all the downsides of #2 (we still need a naming registry).
I do agree it is a 4th option, but the downsides seem higher than either
#1 or #2.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
__________________________________________________________________________
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
