> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 8:48 AM Lance Bragstad <lbrags...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Bumping this thread again and proposing two conventions based on the > > discussion here. I propose we decide on one of the two following > > conventions: > > > > *<service-type>:<action>:<resource>* > > > > or > > > > *<service-type>:<action>_<resource>* > > > > Where <service-type> is the corresponding service type of the project [0], > > and <action> is either create, get, list, update, or delete. I think > > decoupling the method from the policy name should aid in consistency, > > regardless of the underlying implementation. The HTTP method specifics can > > still be relayed using oslo.policy's DocumentedRuleDefault object [1]. > > > > I think the plurality of the resource should default to what makes sense > > for the operation being carried out (e.g., list:foobars, create:foobar). > > > > I don't mind the first one because it's clear about what the delimiter is > > and it doesn't look weird when projects have something like: > > > > <service-type>:<action>:<subaction>:<resource> > >
My initial preference was the second format, but you make a good point here about potential subactions. Either is fine with me - the main thing I would love to see is consistency in format. But based on this part, I vote for option 2. > > If folks are ok with this, I can start working on some documentation that > > explains the motivation for this. Afterward, we can figure out how we want > > to track this work. > > +1 thanks for working on this! _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
