On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 05:48:47PM +0000, Angus Thomas wrote:
There's been a lot of discussion recently about the best way to
name
the components that our users interact with.
We have sought to arrive at a set of names with which are:
- Descriptive and intuitive
- Internally consistent
- Consistent with the names used by similar applications which users
might be familiar with
Amen! Are the names below consistent with what Katello is calling
things?
So, here's the list:
Is this a brainstormed list meant to start discussion, or is this
intended as a settled list coming down from on high? I'm hoping (and
assuming, for the purposes of my reply below) that it's the former, but
it doesn't quite sound like it. :-\
Image template -> Component Outline
Assembly -> Component Blueprint
Deployable -> Application Blueprint
Deployment -> Application
This is a lot to wrap my head around, but I think this much is probably
for the better. I'm glad that the confusingly-similar "Deployable" and
"Deployment" names are on their way out.
If we have Component Outlines and Component Blueprints, what is just a
"Component"?
Pool Family/Environment -> Cloud
This one is tough to swallow. I can see the logic in it -- you might
have a "Development" Environment or a "Finance Department" Pool
Family,
and it would make some amount of sense to say "I launched another
instance in the Finance Department cloud."
But I fear we're overloading an already-overloaded term. To me, "EC2" is
a cloud, and so a local RHEV installation, and so is Rackspace. If
someone says they're creating a new Cloud, it could now mean a number of
things.
In keeping with the below four names, could we just call this a "Cloud
Resource" instead? Does that make sense? EC2 is the Cloud, "Finance
Department" is the Cloud Resource, and "Accounts Receivable Tools" is
the Cloud Resource Zone.
Best,
Matt