On 10/07/2015 10:50 AM, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Ryan Brown <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Standardizing on "openstack <project> <noun[s]> verb" would likely > be the best solution for both the immediate problem and for the > broader "naming stuff" issue. > > > This is the approach that a number of plugins are taking. I have > STRONGLY recommended that the project name not be used, OSC never uses > project names in a user-visible way. Some plugins do it anyway. > > > A flat namespace was a mostly-fine idea when all integrated projects > were expected to put their CLI in-tree in openstackclient. There > were reviews, and discussions about what noun belonged to whom. > > > I wish there had been more of that. You'd be surprised how little there > actually has been... > > > Noun conflict will only get worse: lots of projects will share words > like stack, domain, user, container, address, and so on. > > > This is one reason multiple-word object names are possible. For > example, we've just merged commands to support the object store > 'account' functions and used 'object store account' for those commands > because we felt that 'account' is too generic. > > > A central reservation process for nouns won't really scale, but > namespacing will because we *already* namespace projects. > > > I believe it will scale far enough to encomapss the realistic > possibilites of putting everything under the top-level 'openstack' > command. I think that is the assumption that we need to be addressing. > As you said, it worked when we started 4 years ago, but even then there > were conflicts. We are discussing alternatives that include multiple > top-level commands. But we need to get input from actual users who are > not OpenStack devs on this and do not have the pre-concieved notions of > this-api and that-api to the extent that those of us in the project do. > This is just getting underway, and will be a summit topic. > > Users should not have to know or care which API implements something.
For the CLI, definitely agree. Balkanizing back to a namespace per project is the wrong direction. > I am beginning to regret giving up the command name control as it is > re-creating the situation we had with the original CLIs and the lack of > consistency. > > Also I want to add that the philosophy of OpenStackClient is not to > simply accept everything that the API declares as the CLI and stop > there, but to make the operations simple and meaningful for the users. > We have abstracted some API bits and flat out changed others to do this. > > dt > > "The 'C' in OSC == 'consistent'." > > -- > > Dean Troyer > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
