On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 24/11/13 12:47 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Morgan Fainberg <m...@metacloud.com> >> wrote: >> >> In all honesty it doesn't matter which term we go with. As long as we >> are >> consistent and define the meaning. I think we can argue intuitive vs >> non-intuitive in this case unto the ground. I prefer "project" to >> tenant, >> but beyond being a bit of an "overloaded" term, I really don't think >> anyone >> will really notice one way or another as long as everything is using >> the >> same terminology. We could call it "grouping-of-openstack-things" if >> we >> wanted to (though I might have to pull some hair out if we go to that >> terminology). However, with all that in mind, we have made the >> choice to move toward >> project (horizon, keystone, OSC, keystoneclient) and have some momentum >> behind that push (plus newer projects already use the project >> nomenclature). Making a change back to tenant might prove a worse UX >> than >> moving everything else in line (nova I think is the one real major >> hurdle >> to get converted over, and deprecation of keystone v2 API). >> >> FWIW, ceilometer also uses project in our API (although some of our docs >> use >> the terms interchangeably). >> > > And, FWIW, Marconi uses project as well. > > Well project seems to be the way everyone is heading long term. So we'll do this for the Nova V3 API. As others have mentioned, I think the most important this is that we all end up using the same terminology (though with the long life of APIs we're stuck with the both for a few years at least). Chris
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev