Dell - Internal Use - Confidential +1 -----Original Message----- From: crowbar-bounces On Behalf Of Adam Spiers Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 7:20 AM To: Hirschfeld, Rob Cc: Dearborn, Chris; crowbar Subject: Re: [Crowbar] New names for NodeRole > suggesting "Tack"
Rob Hirschfeld (rob_hirschf...@dell.com) wrote: > > Yes and no. All the noderoles together make up the noderole graph, which by > itself does not care about deployments. However, when a noderole is created > (and gets its initial configuration) and bound to the noderole graph, it is > always created in the context of a deployment, which determines what > configuration it will get and determines what noderoles it will be bound to > to satisfy the dependencies of the role it is binding to the node. > > * Node-role bindings (called noderoles for short -- please suggest a > better name for this!), which represent a specific instance of a role bound > to a node. Noderoles have their own configuration in addition to the role > configuration at a deployment level and the default role configuration. > What is the configuration that a node role owns? Would this configuration be > user visible, or something that would be set by the barclamp associated with > the role? > > I'm going to suggest "Tack" for this. There are several other ideas (Nail, > Grain, Binding, etc). I already suggested "assignment". Since node roles are closely related to deployments, IMHO it feels wrong to have one term (tack) aligning with the building tools metaphor and the other (deployment) not. An assignment can intuitively be part of a deployment, but a tack can't. My £0.02 ... _______________________________________________ Crowbar mailing list Crowbar@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/
_______________________________________________ Crowbar mailing list Crowbar@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/
