<html><body>
<p><tt><font size="2">Zane Bitter <zbitter@redhat.com> wrote on 10/22/2013 09:24:28 AM:<br>
<br>
> <br>
> On 22/10/13 09:15, Thomas Spatzier wrote:<br>
> > BTW, the convention of properties being input and attributes being output,<br>
> > i.e. that subtle distinction between properties and attributes is not<br>
> > really intuitive, at least not to me as non-native speaker, because I used<br>
> > to use both words as synonyms.<br>
> <br>
> As a native speaker, I can confidently state that it's not intuitive to <br>
> anyone ;)<br>
> <br>
> We unfortunately inherited these names from the Properties section and <br>
> the Fn::GetAtt function in cfn templates. It's even worse than that, <br>
> because there's a whole category of... uh... things (DependsOn, <br>
> DeletionPolicy, &c.) that don't even have a name - I always have to <br>
> resist the urge to call them 'attributes' too.<br>
</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">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?</font></tt><br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">Thanks,</font></tt><br>
<tt><font size="2">LN</font></tt><br>
</body></html>