Open Stack

> From: Mike Spreitzer <mspreitz at us.ibm.com>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List \(not for usage questions\)"
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: 19/09/2014 07:15
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] naming of provider template for docs
>
> Angus Salkeld <asalkeld at mirantis.com> wrote on 09/18/2014 09:33:56 PM:
>
> > Hi
>
> > I am trying to add some docs to openstack-manuals hot_guide about
> > using provider templates : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121741/
>
> > Mike has suggested we use a different term, he thinks "provider" is
> > confusing.
> > I agree that at the minimum, it is not very descriptive.
>
> > Mike has suggested "nested stack", I personally think this means
> something a
> > bit more general to many of us (it includes the concept of aws
> stacks) and may
> > I suggest "template resource" - note this is even the class name for
> > this exact functionality.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> > Option 1) stay as is "provider templates"
> > Option 2) "nested stack"
> > Option 3) "template resource"

Out of those 3 I like #3 the most, even though not perfect as Mike
discussed below.

>
> Thanks for rising to the documentation challenge and trying to get
> good terminology.
>
> I think your intent is to describe a category of resources, so your
> option 3 is superior to option 1 --- the thing being described is
> not a template, it is a resource (made from a template).
>
> I think
>
> Option 4) "custom resource"

That one sound too generic to me, since also custom python based resource
plugins are custom resources.

>
> would be even better.  My problem with "template resource" is that,
> to someone who does not already know what it means, this looks like
> it might be a kind of resource that is a template (e.g., for
> consumption by some other resource that does something with a
> template), rather than itself being something made from a template.
> If you want to follow this direction to something perfectly clear,
> you might try "templated resource" (which is a little better) or
> "template-based resource" (which I think is pretty clear but a bit
> wordy) --- but an AWS::CloudFormation::Stack is also based on a
> template.  I think that if you try for a name that really says all
> of the critical parts of the idea, you will get something that is
> too wordy and/or awkward.  It is true that "custom resource" begs
> the question of how the user accomplishes her customization, but at
> least now we have the reader asking the right question instead of
> being misled.

I think "template-based resource" really captures the concept best. And it
is not too wordy IMO.
If it helps to explain the concept intuitively, I would be in favor of it.

Regards,
Thomas

>
> I agree that "nested stack" is a more general concept.  It describes
> the net effect, which the things we are naming have in common with
> AWS::CloudFormation::Stack.  I think it would make sense for our
> documentation to say something like "both an
> AWS::CloudFormation::Stack and a custom resource are ways to specify
> a nested stack".
>
> Thanks,
> Mike _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev