> -----Original Message----- > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 3:34 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][API] Need naming suggestions for > "capabilities" > > On 08/15/2016 09:27 AM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > Currently in Nova we're discussion adding a "capabilities" API to > > expose to users what actions they're allowed to take, and having > > compute hosts expose "capabilities" for use by the scheduler. As much > > fun as it would be to have the same term mean two very different > > things in Nova to retain some semblance of sanity let's rename one or > > both of these concepts. > > > > An API "capability" is going to be an action, or URL, that a user is > > allowed to use. So "boot an instance" or "resize this instance" are > > capabilities from the API point of view. Whether or not a user has > > this capability will be determined by looking at policy rules in > place > > and the capabilities of the host the instance is on. For instance an > > upcoming volume multiattach feature may or may not be allowed for an > > instance depending on host support and the version of nova-compute > > code running on that host. > > > > A host "capability" is a description of the hardware or software on > > the host that determines whether or not that host can fulfill the > > needs of an instance looking for a home. So SSD or x86 could be host > > capabilities. > > https://github.com/jaypipes/os- > capabilities/blob/master/os_capabilitie > > s/const.py > > has a list of some examples. > > > > Some possible replacement terms that have been thrown out in > > discussions are features, policies(already used), grants, faculties. > > But none of those seemed to clearly fit one concept or the other, > except policies. > > > > Any thoughts on this hard problem? > > I know, naming is damn hard, right? :) > > 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. [Mooney, Sean K] yep I like that suggestion though I'm fine with either. os-traits is nice and short and I like the delineation between attributes and abilities. > > Thoughts? > -jay > > _______________________________________________________________________ > ___ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev- > [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
