Open Stack

On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Dougal Matthews <dougal at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 21/01/14 14:19, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
>> when I was getting feedback on wireframes and we talked about Roles,
>> there were various objections and not much suggestions. I would love to
>> call for action and think a bit about the term for concept currently
>> known as Role (= Resource Category).
> 
> This indeed a bit confusing, I think Role has mostly been rejected and I've seen Resource Category used the most since.
> 
> 
>> So far suggested terms:
>> * Role *
>>   - short name - plus points
>>   - quite overloaded term (user role, etc)
> 
> -1 for Role, I don't think short is a good enough reason.

Agreed. Role is overloaded IMO.
> 
> 
>> * Resource Category *
>>   - pretty long (devs already shorten it - confusing)
>>   - Heat specific term
> 
> +0, I'ge gotten used to this, its quite long, but its not that bad.
> 
> 
>> 
>> * Resource Class *
>>   - older term
> 
> -0, this strikes me as confusing as what we are defining now is somewhat different to what a Resource Class was. However, if we can clear it up this name is otherwise fine.
> 
> 
>> Are there any other suggestions (ideally something short and accurate)?
> 
> I'll throw out a couple to start ideas -
> 
> - Resource Role (people seem to like Resource and role! ;-) )
> - Resource Group
> - Role Type

How about Instance Type? I’m looking at page 10 of the latest wireframes [1] and I see we are using the terms “Resource”, “Node”, and “Instance” to labels certain items. I’m pretty sure Node and Instance are different, but I’m wondering if we need to introduce Resource as a new term.

My thoughts,
Liz
[1]http://people.redhat.com/~jcoufal/openstack/tripleo/2014-01-20_tripleo-ui-icehouse.pdf

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