incubator-deltacloud-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Lalancette <clala...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Length of instance names in Deltacloud
Date Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:46:25 GMT
On 06/02/11 - 10:27:18AM, David Lutterkort wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:18 -0400, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> > 4)  Export the name length restriction through some sort of deltacloud feature.
> > Then the client can look at the restriction, and generate a name conforming
> > to the restriction.
> > 
> > Pros: Requires very little change in deltacloud itself.  Pushes the problem out
> > to the client
> > Cons: Pushes the problem out to the client ;).  Sort of breaks the cloud
> > abstraction by having to have the client be smarter
> 
> From the API side, I see this as the only practical option - anything
> else would add some sort of application logic to the API. It would also
> require some name remapping scheme: Deltacloud says the instance is
> called 'frobnez' when the cloud provider calls it 'i-123476'. That means
> there's yet another piece of data that admins need to hang on to, with
> devastating consequences if they don't.
> 
> In practical terms, we already have a feature 'user_name' for instances
> that indicates that the clouds supports user-supplied names. We could
> just enhance the XML to include the maximum size, e.g.
> 
>         <api driver="..." version="...">
>                 <link href="http://localhost:3001/api/instances" rel="instances">
>                     <feature name="user_name">
>                         <param name="name">
>                                   <constraint name="max_length"
>                                 value="20"/>
>                                   <constraint name="pattern"
>                                 value="[a-zA-Z0-9]+"/>
>                                 </param>
>                     </feature>
>                 </link>
>         </api>
> 
> (The pattern stuff as an example of something we don't need right now,
> but might want to add at some point)

Right.  OK, so the consensus here seems to be that the feature thing is the
way to go.  I'll start working on that.

Thanks,
-- 
Chris Lalancette

Mime
View raw message