On 08/15/2016 10:50 AM, Dean Troyer wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com <mailto:jaypi...@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.
Right, the difference being a property has a key/value structure whereas a trait in this context is a simple string tag structure.
Best, -jay __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
