again, as usual, I'm +1 Spiers. On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Adam Spiers <aspi...@suse.com> wrote: > 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/
-- Judd Maltin T: 917-882-1270 F: 501-694-7809 what could possibly go wrong? _______________________________________________ Crowbar mailing list Crowbar@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/
