Zane Bitter <zbit...@redhat.com> wrote on 10/22/2013 09:24:28 AM:
>
> On 22/10/13 09:15, Thomas Spatzier wrote:
> > BTW, the convention of properties being input and attributes being
output,
> > i.e. that subtle distinction between properties and attributes is not
> > really intuitive, at least not to me as non-native speaker, because I
used
> > to use both words as synonyms.
>
> As a native speaker, I can confidently state that it's not intuitive to
> anyone ;)
>
> We unfortunately inherited these names from the Properties section and
> the Fn::GetAtt function in cfn templates. It's even worse than that,
> because there's a whole category of... uh... things (DependsOn,
> DeletionPolicy, &c.) that don't even have a name - I always have to
> resist the urge to call them 'attributes' too.
At least for the components construct being proposed (by Steve Baker),
shall we adopt a more explicit convention and require component definitions
to explicitly name their inputs and outputs?
Thanks,
LN
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
