Angus Salkeld <asalk...@mirantis.com> wrote on 09/18/2014 09:33:56 PM:
> Hi > I am trying to add some docs to openstack-manuals hot_guide about > using provider templates : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121741/ > Mike has suggested we use a different term, he thinks "provider" is > confusing. > I agree that at the minimum, it is not very descriptive. > Mike has suggested "nested stack", I personally think this means something a > bit more general to many of us (it includes the concept of aws stacks) and may > I suggest "template resource" - note this is even the class name for > this exact functionality. > > Thoughts? > Option 1) stay as is "provider templates" > Option 2) "nested stack" > Option 3) "template resource" Thanks for rising to the documentation challenge and trying to get good terminology. I think your intent is to describe a category of resources, so your option 3 is superior to option 1 --- the thing being described is not a template, it is a resource (made from a template). I think Option 4) "custom resource" would be even better. My problem with "template resource" is that, to someone who does not already know what it means, this looks like it might be a kind of resource that is a template (e.g., for consumption by some other resource that does something with a template), rather than itself being something made from a template. If you want to follow this direction to something perfectly clear, you might try "templated resource" (which is a little better) or "template-based resource" (which I think is pretty clear but a bit wordy) --- but an AWS::CloudFormation::Stack is also based on a template. I think that if you try for a name that really says all of the critical parts of the idea, you will get something that is too wordy and/or awkward. It is true that "custom resource" begs the question of how the user accomplishes her customization, but at least now we have the reader asking the right question instead of being misled. I agree that "nested stack" is a more general concept. It describes the net effect, which the things we are naming have in common with AWS::CloudFormation::Stack. I think it would make sense for our documentation to say something like "both an AWS::CloudFormation::Stack and a custom resource are ways to specify a nested stack". Thanks, Mike
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
