opaque ids vs. natural keys

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Mark Shuttleworth
<mark.shuttleworth at canonical.com> wrote:
> Yes & no!
>
> We came to the agreement that we don't need to *deliver* nested
> containers, but I did ask that we have a namespace which reflects
> containers in a way that can accommodate nesting. So Tim's proposal
> looks like a good start to me. It's unmodified from current
> pre-container practice, and one can easily see how it would accommodate
> both diverse container types and nesting.
>
> What's not clear to me is whether the namespace in question should be
> the service, or the machine.
>
> It seems that what we're really describing is more like:
>
>    machine:0/lxc/3

Okay, clearly I'm the one misunderstanding what we agreed to then.

I'll just record my disagreement as that being something reasonable to
push right now then, for the benefit of future generations.


gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net