Naming of Config keys

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This just came up here:
https://code.launchpad.net/~rvb/juju-core/az-public-storage/+merge/171251

It came up when we did the Openstack provider, but we didn't have a
public discussion of it.

Is it better to have config keys named the same between environments,
or is it better to have the config keys make the most sense for a
given environment.

For example, ec2 calls S3 things Buckets, but Openstack calls them
Containers, as does Azure.

We have a config for "public-bucket" which defines the name of the
bucket-like-thing we want to look in for tools.

When we wrote the Openstack code, we originally called it
"public-container", but were told we should go for consistency with
ec2. It came up again for Azure (because people implementing the code
for X naturally feel things should be named after the thing their
immediately working on).

I think the goal with cross-environment naming of keys is that we
wanted it to be as easy as possible to move your workload from one
provider to another.

I'm a bit conflicted, because I personally prefer the names-in-context
that Raphael is proposing, but we went with the
cross-environment-naming on request. I just want to make sure that
request still stands.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlHKq68ACgkQJdeBCYSNAAP+hgCgkzZ1uHyLqWzpVBvfQ37PIIuo
Tv4AoJ/irUE8ebhCp8PkfUHaYQXrXpZp
=S04D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----