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
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Best wishes!
Baohua
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to