This is more historical than a thought design decision. The resource are supposed to be always created using an UUID, not any name. We added later the name-to-uuid transformation to simplify some use cases (for OpenStack). But it means a name can only be used once across a whole Gnocchi. I think Amazon S3 has the same kind of limitation for the bucket name, no? (just trying to justify that this may not be a problem :-)
Resource ID are supposed to be unique across a Gnocchi deployment and I don't think it's a problem, as there should not be any collision there – it's UUID, there's a large space for everyone.
But the name-to-uuid transformation indeed poses some kind of silliness in this regard.
I'm open to any suggestion.
Oh, and I think the lack of quota is completely orthogonal anyway. It's a missing feature, definitely (probably worth a different bug).
This is more historical than a thought design decision. The resource are supposed to be always created using an UUID, not any name. We added later the name-to-uuid transformation to simplify some use cases (for OpenStack). But it means a name can only be used once across a whole Gnocchi. I think Amazon S3 has the same kind of limitation for the bucket name, no? (just trying to justify that this may not be a problem :-)
Resource ID are supposed to be unique across a Gnocchi deployment and I don't think it's a problem, as there should not be any collision there – it's UUID, there's a large space for everyone.
But the name-to-uuid transformation indeed poses some kind of silliness in this regard.
I'm open to any suggestion.
Oh, and I think the lack of quota is completely orthogonal anyway. It's a missing feature, definitely (probably worth a different bug).