On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/15/2016 09:27 AM, Andrew Laski wrote: > >> 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. > /me didn't stop writing previous email to read this first... I think traits may be preferable to what I wrote a minute ago (using qualifiying words) as this definition maintains separation for the semantics of 'what can I do' vs 'what am I like'. Plus 'trait' is a word that if/when surfaced into the UI will not collide with anything else yet (that I know of). It is a lot like how OSC uses 'property', but may not be totally incompatible. dt -- Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
