Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2016-08-15 10:33:49 -0400: > On 08/15/2016 09:27 AM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > Currently in Nova we're discussion adding a "capabilities" API to expose > > to users what actions they're allowed to take, and having compute hosts > > expose "capabilities" for use by the scheduler. As much fun as it would > > be to have the same term mean two very different things in Nova to > > retain some semblance of sanity let's rename one or both of these > > concepts. > > > > An API "capability" is going to be an action, or URL, that a user is > > allowed to use. So "boot an instance" or "resize this instance" are > > capabilities from the API point of view. Whether or not a user has this > > capability will be determined by looking at policy rules in place and > > the capabilities of the host the instance is on. For instance an > > upcoming volume multiattach feature may or may not be allowed for an > > instance depending on host support and the version of nova-compute code > > running on that host. > > > > A host "capability" is a description of the hardware or software on the > > host that determines whether or not that host can fulfill the needs of > > an instance looking for a home. So SSD or x86 could be host > > capabilities. > > https://github.com/jaypipes/os-capabilities/blob/master/os_capabilities/const.py > > has a list of some examples. > > > > Some possible replacement terms that have been thrown out in discussions > > are features, policies(already used), grants, faculties. But none of > > those seemed to clearly fit one concept or the other, except policies. > > > > Any thoughts on this hard problem? > > I know, naming is damn hard, right? :) > > 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
Does this relate in any way to how DefCore already uses "capabilities"? Doug > > 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. > > Thoughts? > -jay > __________________________________________________________________________ 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