Possibilities for using Ambry as a more "generic" cloud storage

Nobody has claimed this yet.

I was looking in to the possibility of using Ambry as a generic cloud storage solution, basically an S3 replacement. Being a dev myself I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty to implement storage implementations with Ambry's API for various applications like Phabricator, Discourse, XWiki, Open-Xchange, etc.

However I bumped into the issue that all applications I looked into assume that they can control the naming schema of the blob they are storing. Now obviously that is not something that is un-fixable; All of these solutions are opensource and could be made compatible with storage backends which don't let them choose their own "filenames" (blob names would probably be more appropriate). However that would mean getting API changes in to all kinds of upstream projects, which is usually a lot more work then just providing a new storage implementation class (all the projects I encountered already have an abstract concept of storage).

So I was wondering how realistic it would be to implement something in Ambry that would for example create a namespace per blob owner for unique blob names.

An alternative would be to create a totally separate database or gateway in front of Ambry in which a sort of virtual namespace is created. However that would create an additional database to backup, maintain, etc. It would be neat if that data could somehow be stored in Ambry itself to ease the maintenance burden of Amrby.

Start by reviewing Ambry's API and the existing issue discussion about blob naming, namespaces, and generic cloud-storage compatibility. The issue does not name files, tests, an entry point, or a defined completion criterion, so the desired design and what counts as done would need to be clarified first.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.