Angus Salkeld <> 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 :

> 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"

Thanks for rising to the documentation challenge and trying to get good 

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"

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 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".

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to