Open Stack

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/15/2016 09:27 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
>
>> After some thought, I think I've changed my mind on referring to the
>> adjectives as "capabilities" and actually think that the term
>> "capabilities" is better left for the policy-like things.
>>
>
> My vote is the following:
>
> GET /capabilities <-- returns a set of *actions* or *abilities* that the
> user is capable of performing
>
> GET /traits <-- returns a set of *adjectives* or *attributes* that may
> describe a provider of some resource
>
> I can rename os-capabilities to os-traits, which would make Sean Mooney
> happy I think and also clear up the terminology mismatch.
>

/me didn't stop writing previous email to read this first...

I think traits may be preferable to what I wrote a minute ago (using
qualifiying words) as this definition maintains separation for the
semantics of 'what can I do' vs 'what am I like'.

Plus 'trait' is a word that if/when surfaced into the UI will not collide
with anything else yet (that I know of).  It is a lot like how OSC uses
'property', but may not be totally incompatible.

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160815/4b585320/attachment.html>