On 2013-06-20 22:49, Angus Salkeld wrote:
On 20/06/13 22:19 -0400, cbjc...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
So anyway, let's get back to the topic this thread was discussing
about - "passing meta data into provider stacks".
It seems that we have all reached an agreement that deletepolicy and
updatepolicy will be passed as params, and metadata will be exposed to
provider templates through a function
In terms of implemetation,
MetaData:
- add a resolve method to template.py to handle
{'Fn::ProvidedResource': 'Metadata'}
I think the name needs a little thought, how about:
{'Fn::ResourceFacade': 'Metadata'}
<user>
What the heck is a resource facade?
</user>
Can we perhaps take a step back from being developers and consider the
user experience for a second?
This function name may make sense from an implementation standpoint,
but for users, I don't think they're going to be grasping what design
patterns we've applied to our internals.
Can somebody, in plain english, explain why these can't work in a
similar manner cloudformation pseudo parameters like AWS::StackName and
AWS::Region?
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
