Resource name on the provider side

[deusebio]

Right now the interface for most of databases is such that requirer provides the resource name (being database or topic) on its request and the provider answers with the credentials (e.g. username, password, endpoints, etc).

This is somewhat inconsistent with the UX for s3 integrator, where the provider ALSO provides the bucket name and the requirer has a clear requirement listed that :

Is expected to tolerate that the Provider may ignore the bucket field in some cases (e.g. S3Proxy or S3 Integrator) and instead use the bucket name received.

Could we do this also for all database interfaces?

One of the things we are currently struggling with is that the resource name is present in the requirer application data bag, which can be read by the leader but not other units. In the use-case where the client applications want to scale out (adding more units), we need the resource name to be available to them as well. Of course one could include this info in the peer relations, but duplicating information (from application relation to peer relation) does not seem optimal to me. Beside, providing this on the requirer side would fix this, but also it would be more general and consistent with S3 if we want to provide the feature of overriding the requirer preference (similar to the requirement above for s3)