Zane Bitter <zbit...@redhat.com> wrote on 22.10.2013 15:24:28: > From: Zane Bitter <zbit...@redhat.com> > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org, > Date: 22.10.2013 15:27 > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] HOT Software configuration proposal > > On 22/10/13 09:15, Thomas Spatzier wrote: > > BTW, the convention of properties being input and attributes being output, > > i.e. that subtle distinction between properties and attributes is not > > really intuitive, at least not to me as non-native speaker, because I used > > to use both words as synonyms. > > As a native speaker, I can confidently state that it's not intuitive to > anyone ;)
Phew, good to read that ;-) > > We unfortunately inherited these names from the Properties section and > the Fn::GetAtt function in cfn templates. It's even worse than that, > because there's a whole category of... uh... things (DependsOn, > DeletionPolicy, &c.) that don't even have a name - I always have to > resist the urge to call them 'attributes' too. So is this something we should try to get straight in HOT while we still have the flexibility? Regarding properties/attributes for example, to me I would call both just properties of a resource or component, and then I can write them or read them like: components: my_component: type: ... properties: my_prop: { get_property: [ other_component, other_component_prop ] } other_component: # ... I.e. you write property 'my_prop' of 'my_component' in its properties section, and you read property 'other_component_prop' of 'other_component' using the get_property function. ... we can also call them attributes, but use one name, not two different names for the same thing. > > - ZB > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev