<html><body>
<p><font size="2" face="sans-serif">As I understand the proposed flavor framework, the intention is to provide a mechanism for specifying different "flavors" of a given service "type" as they are already defined. So using the term "type" may be confusing. Here we want to specify possibly different set of capabilities within a given defined service type. </font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif">Mohammad </font><br>
<br>
<br>
<img width="16" height="16" src="cid:1__=0ABBF656DFCDD2908f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com" border="0" alt="Inactive hide details for Jay Pipes ---04/25/2014 12:09:43 PM---On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 13:41 +0000, Akihiro Motoki wrote: > Hi,"><font size="2" color="#424282" face="sans-serif">Jay Pipes ---04/25/2014 12:09:43 PM---On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 13:41 +0000, Akihiro Motoki wrote: > Hi,</font><br>
<br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">From: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Jay Pipes <jaypipes@gmail.com></font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">To: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, </font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Date: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">04/25/2014 12:09 PM</font><br>
<font size="1" color="#5F5F5F" face="sans-serif">Subject: </font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Flavor(?) Framework</font><br>
<hr width="100%" size="2" align="left" noshade style="color:#8091A5; "><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt><font size="2">On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 13:41 +0000, Akihiro Motoki wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
> <br>
> I have a same question from Mark. Why is "flavor" not desired?<br>
> My first vote is "flavor" first, and then "type".<br>
<br>
Some reasons:<br>
<br>
First, flavor, in English, can and often is spelled differently<br>
depending on where you live in the world (flavor vs. flavour).<br>
<br>
Second, type is the appropriate term for what this is describing, and<br>
doesn't have connotations of taste, which flavor does.<br>
<br>
I could also mention that the term "flavor" is a vestige of the<br>
Rackspace Cloud API and, IMO, should be killed off in place of the more<br>
common and better understood "instance type" which is used by the EC2<br>
API.<br>
<br>
> There is similar cases in other OpenStack projects.<br>
> Nova uses "flavor" and Cinder uses "(volume) type" for similar cases.<br>
> Both cases are similar to our use cases and I think it is better to<br>
> use<br>
> either of them to avoid more confusion from naming for usesr and<br>
> operators.<br>
> <br>
> Cinder volume_type detail is available at [1]. In Cinder volume_type,<br>
> we can define multiple "volume_type" for one driver. <br>
> (more precisely, "volume_type" is associated to one "backend<br>
> defintion"<br>
> and we can define multiple "backend definition" for one backend<br>
> driver").<br>
> <br>
> In addition, I prefer to managing flavor/type through API and<br>
> decoupling<br>
> flavor/type definition from provider definitions in configuration<br>
> files<br>
> as Cinder and Nova do.<br>
<br>
Yes, I don't believe there's any disagreement on that particular point.<br>
This effort is all about trying to provide a more comfortable and<br>
reasonable way for classification of these advanced services to be<br>
controlled by the user.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
-jay<br>
<br>
> [1]<br>
> </font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/multi_backend.html">http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/multi_backend.html</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><br>
> <br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Akihiro<br>
> <br>
> (2014/04/24 0:05), Eugene Nikanorov wrote:<br>
> <br>
> > Hi neutrons, <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > A quick question of the ^^^<br>
> > I heard from many of you that a term 'flavor' is undesirable, but so<br>
> > far there were no suggestions for the notion that we are going to<br>
> > introduce.<br>
> > So please, suggest you name for the resource.<br>
> > Names that I've been thinking of:<br>
> > - Capability group<br>
> > - Service Offering<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > Thoughts?<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > Thanks,<br>
> > Eugene.<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<br>
> > </font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<br>
> </font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<br>
</font></tt><tt><font size="2"><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a></font></tt><tt><font size="2"><br>
<br>
</font></tt><br>
</body></html>