On Wed, Nov 27 2013, Zane Bitter wrote: >> >> Parameters: >> db_name: >> group: db >> order: 0 >> db_username: >> group: db >> order: 1 >> db_password: >> group: db >> order: 2 >> web_node_name: >> group: web_node >> order: 0 >> keypair: >> group: web_node >> order: 1 > > -2 this is horrible. > > Imagine how much work this is for the poor author! At least they don't > have to maintain parallel hierarchies of matching key names like in > the original proposal, but they still have to manually maintain > multiple lists of orderings. What if you wanted to add another > parameter at the beginning? Maybe we should encourage authors to > number parameters with multiples of 10. Like BASIC programmers in the > 80s. > > And of course if you don't specify the order explicitly then you get > random order again. Sigh. > > There's only one way that this is even remotely maintainable for a > template author, and that's if they group and order stuff manually > anyway (like you have in your example - people will do this > automatically by themselves even if the syntax doesn't require them > to). Since they have to do this, just display the parameters in the UI > in the same order that they are defined in the file. This does the > Right Thing even if the author doesn't know about it, unlike the > explicit order thing which completely breaks down if the order is not > explicitly stated. You probably won't even have to document it because > literally 100% of people will either (a) not care, or (b) expect it to > work that way anyway. In fact, you will almost certainly get bug > reports if you don't display them in the same order as written.
+1 for implicit ordering. I think this will be intuitive for users. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
