Like the policy-group naming. The policy-target is better than policy-point, but still feel there's some little confusing, as the target is usually meaning what it's for, but not what it's on.
Hence, the policy-endpoint might be more exact. On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/07/2014 01:17 PM, Ronak Shah wrote: > >> Hi, >> Following a very interesting and vocal thread on GBP for last couple of >> days and the GBP meeting today, GBP sub-team proposes following name >> changes to the resource. >> >> >> policy-point for endpoint >> policy-group for endpointgroup (epg) >> >> Please reply if you feel that it is not ok with reason and suggestion. >> > > Thanks Ronak and Sumit for sharing. I, too, wasn't able to attend the > meeting (was in other meetings yesterday and today). > > I'm very happy with the change from endpoint-group -> policy-group. > > policy-point is better than endpoint, for sure. The only other suggestion > I might have would be to use "policy-target" instead of "policy-point", > since the former clearly delineates what the object is used for (a target > for a policy). > > But... I won't raise a stink about this. Sorry for sparking long and > tangential discussions on GBP topics earlier this week. And thanks to the > folks who persevered and didn't take too much offense to my questioning. > > Best, > -jay > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Best wishes! Baohua
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev