Revisit pod naming design

[jt-nti]

There are limits on pod names which led to the current human unfriendly names in #16. While there are labels and annotations to help manage the chaincode pods, it would be good to improve the pod names as well.

[jt-nti]

Hi @davidfdr, I've been thinking about your suggestion on discord:

In my opinion, the pod name needs to have the chaincode package name. The package hash is already a SHA hash, so, may we just use , removing the ":" or, just add the chaincode name plus some hash concatenated (Need to check the RFC naming convention ).

I think we can get something like that to work. I'm currently thinking something along the lines of...

<prefix>-<chaincode_label>-<chaincode_run_hash>

Where <prefix> could be configured using an environment variable instead of always being cc. This would provide a way to distinguish between peers in the same namespace but without hitting problems trying to make the peer address work in a pod name.

<chaincode_run_hash> would be similar to the current hash but shorter, i.e. not the hash from the chaincode ID. Possibly a hash of the chaincode.json file that the run binary gets?

Hopefully that would leave enough space for enough of the <chaincode_label> to be useful, although it would need to be truncated and stripped of any invalid pod name characters.