Giles, just about point one as the others follow from it. On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 10:17 AM Giles Sirett <giles.sir...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > > Hi Daan - thanks for your input. Some comments inline below > > > > Kind Regards > Giles > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:17 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: [proposal] Consistency of naming in Cloudstack > > Giles, the principle of what you are saying seems good but I have a few > remarks; 1. Consistency should not become a goal. Clarity is and if context > might give rise to a different understanding of the same work consistency is > detrimental to understanding > > >> I *think* I understand your point, but I see high correlation between > >> consistency of naming and clarity. Surely, using different names (or > >> metaphors!) for the same object type inherently reduces clarity?. Could > >> you give an example of where using different names for one cloudstack > >> object type could increase clarity ?
When under "compute", there is the occurrence of "instance", this is not accurate. It is not a "compute instance". Would this item occur under "Virtual Machines" there would not be an issue. I am sure we can find many instances for the use of "instance" that would not refer to a VM instance. (that sentence was not more than a happy incident!) So far the only good argument I read about using "instance" is the fact that iot has already been used a lot. which is "kind of" weak. As far as I can see the industry is already doing damage control, specifying other uses of instance further to avoid cognitive clashes. > €0.02 > > [1] > https://medium.com/swlh/the-importance-of-metaphors-in-programming-philosophy-and-trading-a0030ed176b6 > [2] http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/metaphor.html > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:47 PM Giles Sirett <giles.sir...@shapeblue.com> > wrote: > > > > Background > > Recently, I have been looking at a number of issues relating to the > > "first use" / "first impression" use of cloudstack. What to people > > think of Cloudstack as a new user? What is peoples perception of > > Cloudstack as a new user ? How easy is it for people to understand > > cloudstack & its concepts and to get help > > > > > > One thing I have seen is that CloudStack is inconsistent with what we call > > VM's/Instances: > > > > > > * In the UI main menu, we say Instances. We then have a very large > > "Create instance" button. All lifecycle operations are then "Foo Instance" > > * In various other places in the UI (many text messages, error > > messages, column headers, for example) we say "VM" > > * The API uses Instance, VM and Virtual Machine > > * The documentation, again, uses all 3 terms > > > > Now - I know everybody on this list (myself included for the last 10 > > years) has always used these terms interchangeably - we all KNOW that > > these are the same things. However, I think it could cause confusion > > to people seeing Cloudstack for the first time and create negative > > impressions. Also, there is no consistency when searching > > documentation - one page uses one term, one the other (and some even > > use both on the same page) . I don't know of many other pieces of > > software that use 2/3 different names for their primary functional > > object > > > > > > My proposal is to move towards having consistency of this naming and would > > look something like this: > > > > > > 1. Choose the name to use going forwards (more on that later) > > 2. Undertake a remedial exercise: > > * Update UI elements to [new name] > > * Update documentation to [New Name] > > * Leave Global Settings names alone, but change their description > > to reflect [New Name] > > * Leave the API alone - theres no way of getting consistency there > > without breaking compatibility > > 3. Encourage contributors to use [new name] in all work going > > forwards > > > > > > The remedial exercise (hopefully) could be a find/replace (with some > > manual checking) - I'd be happy to take that on with some help from work > > colleagues As/when/if we do do Cloudstack 5.0, then look at the API, but > > IMO this is lower priority as people that's not usdually "first impression" > > > > > > So - first proposal point: any objections to me undertaking this work ? > > > > > > Second point: what to call these things ? > > It is my view that we should call them Instances. These are my reasons: > > > > * Nearly all Cloud computing platforms refer to them as instances (i.e. > > industry standard) . Yes, it is a VM "behind the scenes", but Instance is > > an accepted term that is slightly abstracted from VM > > * Our primary UI already uses Instance ns most prominent places, > > renaming top level nav and functionality is a step backwards IMO > > * Today, Cloudstack provides these through VMs , but that could change > > in the future (please don't read anything into that comment) - instance > > doesn't tie us to VMs (which is probably why most cloud providers use it) > > > > So, my proposal is to bring consistency and use the term Instance > > > > From brief discussions, I know other people favour other terms and may have > > objections to the term Instance (despite it having been in use in ACS for > > many years) - but happy to take all inputs if people feel this is just > > wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards > > Giles > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Daan -- Daan
