On 11/11/2011 08:49 PM, Jason Guiditta wrote:
On 11/11/11 17:48 +0000, Angus Thomas wrote:
> There's been a lot of discussion recently about the best way to name
> the components that our users interact with.
>
> We have sought to arrive at a set of names with which are:
>
> - Descriptive and intuitive
> - Internally consistent
> - Consistent with the names used by similar applications which users
> might be familiar with
>
>
> Given that we'll need to update the code to reflect the new names,
> along with the related documentation etc., there's a great deal to be
> said for actually settling on a set of names.
>
>
> So, here's the list:
>
> Image template -> Component Outline
> Assembly -> Component Blueprint
> Deployable -> Application Blueprint
> Deployment -> Application
> Pool Family/Environment -> Cloud
> Pool -> Cloud Resource Zone
> User Defined Realm -> Cloud Resource Cluster
> Provider -> Cloud Resource Provider
> Hardware Profile -> Cloud Resource Profile
>
Ugh, where is clalance when we need him? Seriously, how many times do
we need to rename these things? While not all are neccessarily bad
(though Deployment => Application is definitely horrible), I am just
tired of the churn here on naming. How can we expect users to know
what we are talking about if we constantly are changing our glossary?
While I sympathise with the sentiment, I see this as the final
discussion on the naming matter. After this, the names will be settled
and for better or worse, we'll be stuck with them.
Remember that what's now Aeolus Conductor went through about four
different names. Then we picked one, bought the domain and now it's done.
With the 1.0 getting closer every day, this is probably the only time we
can actually finalize this.
-j
>
>
> Angus