This isn't the first time we've seen something like this. I wonder if we should think about what the impact would be if we removed the uniq requirement on the name field of a resource provider. It seems like it will inevitably cause problems as people/services start doing things with placement that span arbitrary boundaries (like time in this case) that matter to the client side, but are meaningless to placement.
This isn't the first time we've seen something like this. I wonder if we should think about what the impact would be if we removed the uniq requirement on the name field of a resource provider. It seems like it will inevitably cause problems as people/services start doing things with placement that span arbitrary boundaries (like time in this case) that matter to the client side, but are meaningless to placement.