> From: Mike Spreitzer <mspre...@us.ibm.com> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List \(not for usage questions\)" > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: 19/09/2014 07:15 > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] naming of provider template for docs > > 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"
Out of those 3 I like #3 the most, even though not perfect as Mike discussed below. > > 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" That one sound too generic to me, since also custom python based resource plugins are custom resources. > > 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 think "template-based resource" really captures the concept best. And it is not too wordy IMO. If it helps to explain the concept intuitively, I would be in favor of it. Regards, Thomas > > 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 _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
