I have reflected on this further and offer this suggestion: 1) Add a feature to Magnum to auto-generate human readable names, like Docker does for un-named containers, and ElasticSearch does for naming cluster nodes. Use this feature if no name is specified upon the creation of a Bay or Baymodel.
-and- 2) Add a configuration directives (default=FALSE) for allow_duplicate_bay_name and allow_duplicate_baymodel_name. If TRUE, duplicate named Bay and BayModel resources will be allowed, as they are today. This way, by default Magnum requires a unique name, and if none is specified, it will automatically generate a name. This way no additional burden is put on users who want to act on containers exclusively using UUIDs, and cloud operators can decide if they want to enforce name uniqueness or not. In the case of clouds that want to allow sharing access to a BayModel between multiple tenants (example: a global BayModel named “kubernetes”) with allow_duplicate_baymodel_name set to FALSE, a user will still be allowed to create a BayModel with the name “kubernetes” and it will override the global one. If a user-supplied BayModel is present with the same name as a global one, we shall automatically select the one owned by the tenant. About Sharing of BayModel Resources: Similarly, if we add features to allow one tenant to share a BayModel with another tenant (pending acceptance of the offered share), and duplicate names are allowed, then prefer in this order: 1) Use the resource owned by the same tenant, 2) Use the resource shared by the other tenant (post acceptance only), 3) Use the global resource. If duplicates exist in the same scope of ownership, then raise an exception requiring the use of a UUID in that case to resolve the ambiguity. One expected drawback of this approach is that tools designed to integrate with one Magnum may not work the same with another Magnum if the allow_duplicate_bay* settings are changed from the default values on one but not the other. This should be made clear in the comments above the configuration directive in the example config file. Adrian On Jun 2, 2015, at 8:44 PM, Jay Lau <jay.lau....@gmail.com<mailto:jay.lau....@gmail.com>> wrote: I think that we did not come to a conclusion in today's IRC meeting. Adrian proposed that Magnum generate a unique name just like what docker is doing for "docker run", the problem mentioned by Andrew Melton is that Magnum support multi tenant, we should support the case that bay/baymodel under different tenant can have same name, the unique name is not required. Also we may need support name update as well if the end user specify a name by mistake and want to update it after the bay/baymodel was created. Hmm.., looking forward to more comments from you. Thanks. 2015-06-02 23:34 GMT+08:00 Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov<mailto:kevin....@pnnl.gov>>: Names can make writing generic orchestration templates that would go in the applications catalog easier. Humans are much better at inputting a name rather then a uuid. You can even default a name in the text box and if they don't change any of the defaults, it will just work. You can't do that with a UUID since it is different on every cloud. Thanks, Kevin ________________________________ From: Jay Lau [jay.lau....@gmail.com<mailto:jay.lau....@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 12:33 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Does Bay/Baymodel name should be a required option when creating a Bay/Baymodel Thanks Adrian, imho making name as required can bring more convenient to end users because UUID is difficult to use. Without name, the end user need to retrieve the UUID of the bay/baymodel first before he did some operations for the bay/baymodel, its really time consuming. We can discuss more in this week's IRC meeting. Thanks. 2015-06-02 14:08 GMT+08:00 Adrian Otto <adrian.o...@rackspace.com<mailto:adrian.o...@rackspace.com>>: -1. I disagree. I am not convinced that requiring names is a good idea. I've asked several times why there is a desire to require names, and I'm not seeing any persuasive arguments that are not already addressed by UUIDs. We have UUID values to allow for acting upon an individual resource. Names are there as a convenience. Requiring names, especially unique names, would make Magnum harder to use for API users driving Magnum from other systems. I want to keep the friction as low as possible. I'm fine with replacing "None" with an empty string. Consistency with Nova would be a valid argument if we were being more restrictive, but that's not the case. We are more permissive. You can use Magnum in the same way you use Nova if you want, by adding names to all resources. I don't see the wisdom in forcing that style of use without a technical reason for it. Thanks, Adrian On May 31, 2015, at 4:43 PM, Jay Lau <jay.lau....@gmail.com<mailto:jay.lau....@gmail.com>> 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 root@devstack007:/tmp# nova boot usage: nova boot [--flavor <flavor>] [--image <image>] [--image-with <key=value>] [--boot-volume <volume_id>] [--snapshot <snapshot_id>] [--min-count <number>] [--max-count <number>] [--meta <key=value>] [--file <dst-path=src-path>] [--key-name <key-name>] [--user-data <user-data>] [--availability-zone <availability-zone>] [--security-groups <security-groups>] [--block-device-mapping <dev-name=mapping>] [--block-device key1=value1[,key2=value2...]] [--swap <swap_size>] [--ephemeral size=<size>[,format=<format>]] [--hint <key=value>] [--nic <net-id=net-uuid,v4-fixed-ip=ip-addr,v6-fixed-ip=ip-addr,port-id=port-uuid>] [--config-drive <value>] [--poll] <name> error: too few arguments Try 'nova help boot' for more information. root@devstack007:/tmp# nova flavor-create usage: nova flavor-create [--ephemeral <ephemeral>] [--swap <swap>] [--rxtx-factor <factor>] [--is-public <is-public>] <name> <id> <ram> <disk> <vcpus> Please show your comments if any. -- Thanks, Jay Lau (Guangya Liu) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Thanks, Jay Lau (Guangya Liu) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Thanks, Jay Lau (Guangya Liu) __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
