9 ms·

Looks a lot like the resource names on AWS [1]  arn:aws:elasticbeanstalk:us-east-1:123456789012:environment/M

by bjt 12y ago

Looks a lot like the resource names on AWS [1]  arn:aws:elasticbeanstalk:us-east-1:123456789012:environment/My App/MyEnvironment  arn:aws:iam::123456789012:user/David  arn:aws:rds:eu-west-1:001234567890:db:mysql-db  arn:aws:s3:::my_corporate_bucket/* http://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-arns-and-namespaces.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/aws-arns-and-na...

eropple 12y ago
It should. There's a reason for that. :)
- danellis 12y ago
  What's the reason, and why didn't they just use URNs?
  - pluma 12y ago
    I think the implication is meant to be "they look like URNs because they are".
    - wtbob 12y ago
      Except that they're not; rather, they're ARNs. URNs must begun with 'urn:'. It doesn't make a lot of sense that they're not URNs, but…they're not.
      - eropple 12y ago
        My guess: "nobody uses URNs generally, so might as well save four bytes off every one?"
  - eropple 12y ago
    The reason is because they're based off the same principle. "ARN" stands for "Amazon Resource Name". I don't know why they didn't use URNs. Probably because nobody else does.