Open Stack

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 13:41 +0000, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a same question from Mark. Why is "flavor" not desired?
> > My first vote is "flavor" first, and then "type".
>
> Some reasons:
>
> First, flavor, in English, can and often is spelled differently
> depending on where you live in the world (flavor vs. flavour).
>
> Second, type is the appropriate term for what this is describing, and
> doesn't have connotations of taste, which flavor does.
>
> I could also mention that the term "flavor" is a vestige of the
> Rackspace Cloud API and, IMO, should be killed off in place of the more
> common and better understood "instance type" which is used by the EC2
> API.
>
>

I agree with Jay on all these points about flavor. See if you can use a
classification of type.

Thanks,
Anne


> > There is similar cases in other OpenStack projects.
> > Nova uses "flavor" and Cinder uses "(volume) type" for similar cases.
> > Both cases are similar to our use cases and I think it is better to
> > use
> > either of them to avoid more confusion from naming for usesr and
> > operators.
> >
> > Cinder volume_type detail is available at [1]. In Cinder volume_type,
> > we can define multiple "volume_type" for one driver.
> > (more precisely, "volume_type" is associated to one "backend
> > defintion"
> > and we can define multiple "backend definition" for one backend
> > driver").
> >
> > In addition, I prefer to managing flavor/type through API and
> > decoupling
> > flavor/type definition from provider definitions in configuration
> > files
> > as Cinder and Nova do.
>
> Yes, I don't believe there's any disagreement on that particular point.
> This effort is all about trying to provide a more comfortable and
> reasonable way for classification of these advanced services to be
> controlled by the user.
>
> Best,
> -jay
>
> > [1]
> > http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/multi_backend.html
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Akihiro
> >
> > (2014/04/24 0:05), Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
> >
> > > Hi neutrons,
> > >
> > >
> > > A quick question of the ^^^
> > > I heard from many of you that a term 'flavor' is undesirable, but so
> > > far there were no suggestions for the notion that we are going to
> > > introduce.
> > > So please, suggest you name for the resource.
> > > Names that I've been thinking of:
> > >  - Capability group
> > >  - Service Offering
> > >
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Eugene.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140425/d9929c40/attachment.html>