On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Brad P. Crochet <b...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Actually, the 'baremetal' namespace is exactly what it should be,
> based on other OSC clients. For instance, Neutron uses 'network', Nova
> uses 'server', etc. The idea is that the client should use the service
> type, not the codename of the project that implements it.
I would like to correct this a bit: 'server' and ';network' are resource
names, not namespaces. The need for namespaces is an unfortunate
consequence of the large number of resources and lack of simple unique
names for them. We really prefer to do things like use multi-work
resources rather than just blindly paste a prefix onto a command.
For example, there are at least three different users of 'flavor'.
'compute flavor' was the only thing in the beginning so it naturally got
the bare 'flavor' name. The other flavor resources ('message flavor' is
the only one I recall ATM) have another word added that acts as a type
specifier, not a blind namespace prefix.
dt
--
Dean Troyer
dtro...@gmail.com
__________________________________________________________________________
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
