Open Stack

Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote on 22.10.2013 15:24:28:
> From: Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com>
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org,
> Date: 22.10.2013 15:27
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] HOT Software configuration proposal
>
> On 22/10/13 09:15, Thomas Spatzier wrote:
> > BTW, the convention of properties being input and attributes being
output,
> > i.e. that subtle distinction between properties and attributes is not
> > really intuitive, at least not to me as non-native speaker, because I
used
> > to use both words as synonyms.
>
> As a native speaker, I can confidently state that it's not intuitive to
> anyone ;)

Phew, good to read that ;-)

>
> We unfortunately inherited these names from the Properties section and
> the Fn::GetAtt function in cfn templates. It's even worse than that,
> because there's a whole category of... uh... things (DependsOn,
> DeletionPolicy, &c.) that don't even have a name - I always have to
> resist the urge to call them 'attributes' too.

So is this something we should try to get straight in HOT while we still
have the flexibility?
Regarding properties/attributes for example, to me I would call both just
properties of a resource or component, and then I can write them or read
them like:

components:
  my_component:
    type: ...
    properties:
      my_prop: { get_property: [ other_component, other_component_prop ] }

  other_component:
    # ...

I.e. you write property 'my_prop' of 'my_component' in its properties
section, and you read property 'other_component_prop' of 'other_component'
using the get_property function.
... we can also call them attributes, but use one name, not two different
names for the same thing.

>
> - ZB
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>