Host Groups should be renamed to Host (Configuration) Templates

Development
1

This has been discussed before but I thought I'd bring this up again here.

When Foreman is used with Katello we have the concept of "System Groups" (soon to be "Host Collections" - https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4050) and "Host Groups". These two drastically different concepts are named so similarly (especially after the rename to "Host Collections") that they will readily cause confusion.

Moreover, even when Foreman is used without Katello, the term "Host Group" isn't accurate. If you look at the following definitions (both from Google) it becomes apparent that our current "Host Groups" are actually "Host Templates" or "Host Configuration Templates".

group (gro͞op/)
noun

  1. a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.

tem·plate (ˈtemplət/)
noun

  1. a shaped piece of metal, wood, card, plastic, or other material used as a pattern for processes such as painting, cutting out, shaping, or drilling.
  • COMPUTING: a preset format for a document or file, used so that the format does not have to be recreated each time it is used.

I propose that we rename Foreman's Host "Groups" to Host Templates since it is a more accurate term. Another benefit from doing so is that Katello could then use the term "Host Groups" and not cause undue confusion by introducing two similarly named concepts that are so drastically different.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Walden

2

+1 to "Host Template" and "Host Collection"

To further muddy the waters, though, there is also the need to bring the concepts of a provisioning template (Host Group) and a content template (Activation Key). Perhaps Host Template could be the landing ground for merging these two concepts?

··· ----- Original Message ----- > This has been discussed before but I thought I'd bring this up again here. > > When Foreman is used with Katello we have the concept of "System Groups" > (soon to be "Host Collections" - > https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4050) and "Host Groups". These two > drastically different concepts are named so similarly (especially after the > rename to "Host Collections") that they will readily cause confusion. > > Moreover, even when Foreman is used without Katello, the term "Host Group" > isn't accurate. If you look at the following definitions (both from Google) > it becomes apparent that our current "Host Groups" are actually "Host > Templates" or "Host Configuration Templates". > > > group (gro͞op/) > noun > 1. a number of people or things that are located close together or are > considered or classed together. > > tem·plate (ˈtemplət/) > noun > 1. a shaped piece of metal, wood, card, plastic, or other material used as a > pattern for processes such as painting, cutting out, shaping, or drilling. > - COMPUTING: a preset format for a document or file, used so that the > format does not have to be recreated each time it is used. > > > I propose that we rename Foreman's Host "Groups" to Host Templates since it > is a more accurate term. Another benefit from doing so is that Katello > could then use the term "Host Groups" and not cause undue confusion by > introducing two similarly named concepts that are so drastically different. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Walden > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >
3

I would like to see HostGroups renamed to HostTemplate, sounds like a
better name to me, but it will a lot of work, it need's to be
communicated properly with community. You also probably cannot do this
change in Foreman 1.6 this is probably 2.0 change.

Even then keeping HostCollection or other synonym would be better I
think. Users will already know HostGroup with the old meaning, I would
not reuse the name for collections.

··· On 06.05.14 23:05, Walden Raines wrote: > This has been discussed before but I thought I'd bring this up again here. > > When Foreman is used with Katello we have the concept of "System Groups" (soon to be "Host Collections" - https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4050) and "Host Groups". These two drastically different concepts are named so similarly (especially after the rename to "Host Collections") that they will readily cause confusion. > > Moreover, even when Foreman is used without Katello, the term "Host Group" isn't accurate. If you look at the following definitions (both from Google) it becomes apparent that our current "Host Groups" are actually "Host Templates" or "Host Configuration Templates". > > > group (gro͞op/) > noun > 1. a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together. > > tem·plate (ˈtemplət/) > noun > 1. a shaped piece of metal, wood, card, plastic, or other material used as a pattern for processes such as painting, cutting out, shaping, or drilling. > - COMPUTING: a preset format for a document or file, used so that the format does not have to be recreated each time it is used. > > > I propose that we rename Foreman's Host "Groups" to Host Templates since it is a more accurate term. Another benefit from doing so is that Katello could then use the term "Host Groups" and not cause undue confusion by introducing two similarly named concepts that are so drastically different. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, > Walden >
4

I think I like "Host Group" better. Still, I like the idea of "Host Template" but I question how feasible it is (as Petr mentioned).

David

··· ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom McKay" > To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 8:22:43 AM > Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Host Groups should be renamed to Host (Configuration) Templates > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > This has been discussed before but I thought I'd bring this up again here. > > > > When Foreman is used with Katello we have the concept of "System Groups" > > (soon to be "Host Collections" - > > https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4050) and "Host Groups". These two > > drastically different concepts are named so similarly (especially after the > > rename to "Host Collections") that they will readily cause confusion. > > > > Moreover, even when Foreman is used without Katello, the term "Host Group" > > isn't accurate. If you look at the following definitions (both from > > Google) > > it becomes apparent that our current "Host Groups" are actually "Host > > Templates" or "Host Configuration Templates". > > > > > > group (gro͞op/) > > noun > > 1. a number of people or things that are located close together or are > > considered or classed together. > > > > tem·plate (ˈtemplət/) > > noun > > 1. a shaped piece of metal, wood, card, plastic, or other material used as > > a > > pattern for processes such as painting, cutting out, shaping, or drilling. > > - COMPUTING: a preset format for a document or file, used so that the > > format does not have to be recreated each time it is used. > > > > > > I propose that we rename Foreman's Host "Groups" to Host Templates since it > > is a more accurate term. Another benefit from doing so is that Katello > > could then use the term "Host Groups" and not cause undue confusion by > > introducing two similarly named concepts that are so drastically different. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Cheers, > > Walden > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "foreman-dev" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > +1 to "Host Template" and "Host Collection" > > To further muddy the waters, though, there is also the need to bring the > concepts of a provisioning template (Host Group) and a content template > (Activation Key). Perhaps Host Template could be the landing ground for > merging these two concepts? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "foreman-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >
5

> I would like to see HostGroups renamed to HostTemplate, sounds like a better name to me, but it will a lot of work, it need's to be communicated properly with community. You also probably cannot do this change in Foreman 1.6 this is probably 2.0 change.

+1 for Host Templates!

How does this match up with a Katello activation key? There’s some overlap in
concepts. At the very least, a Foreman Host Template should be able to have a Katello activation
key. I don’t recall seeing that being possible now (although maybe I missed it).

>
> Even then keeping HostCollection or other synonym would be better I think. Users will already know HostGroup with the old meaning, I would not reuse the name for collections.

Groups is the more natural way to call these things. We have Config Groups to group configs,
we should have Host Groups to group hosts. Sysadmins are going to end up calling Host
Collections groups anyways.

··· On 07 May 2014, at 08:49, Petr Chalupa wrote:

On 06.05.14 23:05, Walden Raines wrote:

This has been discussed before but I thought I’d bring this up again here.

When Foreman is used with Katello we have the concept of “System Groups” (soon to be “Host Collections” - fixes #5191/#5193 - rename System Groups to Host Collections by bbuckingham · Pull Request #4050 · Katello/katello · GitHub) and “Host Groups”. These two drastically different concepts are named so similarly (especially after the rename to “Host Collections”) that they will readily cause confusion.

Moreover, even when Foreman is used without Katello, the term “Host Group” isn’t accurate. If you look at the following definitions (both from Google) it becomes apparent that our current “Host Groups” are actually “Host Templates” or “Host Configuration Templates”.

group (gro͞op/)
noun

  1. a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.

tem·plate (ˈtemplət/)
noun

  1. a shaped piece of metal, wood, card, plastic, or other material used as a pattern for processes such as painting, cutting out, shaping, or drilling.
  • COMPUTING: a preset format for a document or file, used so that the format does not have to be recreated each time it is used.

I propose that we rename Foreman’s Host “Groups” to Host Templates since it is a more accurate term. Another benefit from doing so is that Katello could then use the term “Host Groups” and not cause undue confusion by introducing two similarly named concepts that are so drastically different.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Walden

–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

6

It would be great to hear feedback from users. From my point of view,
'host template' seems more appropriate than 'host group'. I've even
heard it described by developers as a template when sharing with others
what it represents.

As for feasibility, if we were able to change 'system' to 'content host'
and 'system group' to 'host collection', it should be feasible. That
said, after doing those other name changes, I can attest to it being a
lot of grunt work.

thanks,
Brad

··· On 05/07/2014 09:02 AM, David Davis wrote: > I think I like "Host Group" better. Still, I like the idea of "Host Template" but I question how feasible it is (as Petr mentioned). > > David > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom McKay" > > To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 8:22:43 AM > > Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Host Groups should be renamed to Host (Configuration) Templates > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > This has been discussed before but I thought I'd bring this up again here. > > > > > > When Foreman is used with Katello we have the concept of "System Groups" > > > (soon to be "Host Collections" - > > > https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4050) and "Host Groups". These two > > > drastically different concepts are named so similarly (especially after the > > > rename to "Host Collections") that they will readily cause confusion. > > > > > > Moreover, even when Foreman is used without Katello, the term "Host Group" > > > isn't accurate. If you look at the following definitions (both from > > > Google) > > > it becomes apparent that our current "Host Groups" are actually "Host > > > Templates" or "Host Configuration Templates". > > > > > > > > > group (gro͞op/) > > > noun > > > 1. a number of people or things that are located close together or are > > > considered or classed together. > > > > > > tem·plate (ˈtemplət/) > > > noun > > > 1. a shaped piece of metal, wood, card, plastic, or other material used as > > > a > > > pattern for processes such as painting, cutting out, shaping, or drilling. > > > - COMPUTING: a preset format for a document or file, used so that the > > > format does not have to be recreated each time it is used. > > > > > > > > > I propose that we rename Foreman's Host "Groups" to Host Templates since it > > > is a more accurate term. Another benefit from doing so is that Katello > > > could then use the term "Host Groups" and not cause undue confusion by > > > introducing two similarly named concepts that are so drastically different. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Walden > > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "foreman-dev" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > > +1 to "Host Template" and "Host Collection" > > > > To further muddy the waters, though, there is also the need to bring the > > concepts of a provisioning template (Host Group) and a content template > > (Activation Key). Perhaps Host Template could be the landing ground for > > merging these two concepts? > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "foreman-dev" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > >
7

I really dislike the "Host Template" thing.
Changing a template doesn't change the Object that was created using the
Template.
I feel that for computer purposes a Template is a default object that
gets copied when I create a new object. Afaict that's not what "Host
Groups" in foreman does right now and thus I think it is the wrong term.

You could call it "Host Set" or "Host Class" though.

Regards,
Andreas

··· Am 07.05.2014 15:25, schrieb Brad Buckingham: > It would be great to hear feedback from users. From my point of view, > 'host template' seems more appropriate than 'host group'. I've even > heard it described by developers as a template when sharing with others > what it represents. > > As for feasibility, if we were able to change 'system' to 'content host' > and 'system group' to 'host collection', it should be feasible. That > said, after doing those other name changes, I can attest to it being a > lot of grunt work. > > thanks, > Brad > > On 05/07/2014 09:02 AM, David Davis wrote: >> I think I like "Host Group" better. Still, I like the idea of "Host >> Template" but I question how feasible it is (as Petr mentioned). >> >> David >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Tom McKay" >> > To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com >> > Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 8:22:43 AM >> > Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Host Groups should be renamed to Host >> (Configuration) Templates >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > > This has been discussed before but I thought I'd bring this up >> again here. >> > > >> > > When Foreman is used with Katello we have the concept of "System >> Groups" >> > > (soon to be "Host Collections" - >> > > https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4050) and "Host Groups". >> These two >> > > drastically different concepts are named so similarly (especially >> after the >> > > rename to "Host Collections") that they will readily cause confusion. >> > > >> > > Moreover, even when Foreman is used without Katello, the term >> "Host Group" >> > > isn't accurate. If you look at the following definitions (both from >> > > Google) >> > > it becomes apparent that our current "Host Groups" are actually "Host >> > > Templates" or "Host Configuration Templates". >> > > >> > > >> > > group (gro͞op/) >> > > noun >> > > 1. a number of people or things that are located close together or >> are >> > > considered or classed together. >> > > >> > > tem·plate (ˈtemplət/) >> > > noun >> > > 1. a shaped piece of metal, wood, card, plastic, or other material >> used as >> > > a >> > > pattern for processes such as painting, cutting out, shaping, or >> drilling. >> > > - COMPUTING: a preset format for a document or file, used so >> that the >> > > format does not have to be recreated each time it is used. >> > > >> > > >> > > I propose that we rename Foreman's Host "Groups" to Host Templates >> since it >> > > is a more accurate term. Another benefit from doing so is that >> Katello >> > > could then use the term "Host Groups" and not cause undue >> confusion by >> > > introducing two similarly named concepts that are so drastically >> different. >> > > >> > > Thoughts? >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > Walden >> > > >> > > -- >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> > > "foreman-dev" group. >> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an >> > > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > >> > >> > +1 to "Host Template" and "Host Collection" >> > >> > To further muddy the waters, though, there is also the need to bring >> the >> > concepts of a provisioning template (Host Group) and a content template >> > (Activation Key). Perhaps Host Template could be the landing ground for >> > merging these two concepts? >> > >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups >> > "foreman-dev" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an >> > email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > >> >

–
Solvention Ltd. & Co. KG
St.-Sebastianus-Str. 5
51147 Köln

Tel: +49 2203 989967-0
Fax: +49 2203 989967-9

http://www.solvention.de
mailto:info@solvention.de

8

Totally agree, I dislike 'Host Template', and not just simply because we
use the concept of 'Host Group' everywhere in our code we've wrapped around
the API (and it will be a lot of work to accommodate this change and if it
must occur, I like the idea of making this a 2.0 version bump).

Perhaps Host Class or Host Group Templates would work (though Host Class is
at odds with with a Puppet Class and what that represents), but I don't
think this matches up with what the katello devs are trying to accomplish,
which is synergy between the two projects.

On another users note…we don't use Katello and have no plans to, and I
think many people who are using foreman are in a similar position. Changing
the foreman core to match katello seems backwards to me. The foreman
community fully understands what a Host Group means and changing this to
Host Template loses that semantic difference and will cause a lot of thrash
and unhappiness in the community as a result.

2 cents from an 'enterprise' user who develops tools around foreman and
relies on foreman for production usage every day. Host Groups works for
well for us and new users completely grasp the concept quickly, and unless
there is a valid technical reason (which I haven't seen in this thread
yet), please don't change it. :frowning: Thanks for reading!

··· On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 10:14:00 AM UTC-7, Andreas Rogge wrote: > > I really dislike the "Host Template" thing. > Changing a template doesn't change the Object that was created using the > Template. > I feel that for computer purposes a Template is a default object that > gets copied when I create a new object. Afaict that's not what "Host > Groups" in foreman does right now and thus I think it is the wrong term. > > You could call it "Host Set" or "Host Class" though. > > Regards, > Andreas > > > Am 07.05.2014 15:25, schrieb Brad Buckingham: > > It would be great to hear feedback from users. From my point of view, > > 'host template' seems more appropriate than 'host group'. I've even > > heard it described by developers as a template when sharing with others > > what it represents. > > > > As for feasibility, if we were able to change 'system' to 'content host' > > and 'system group' to 'host collection', it should be feasible. That > > said, after doing those other name changes, I can attest to it being a > > lot of grunt work. > > > > thanks, > > Brad > > > > On 05/07/2014 09:02 AM, David Davis wrote: > >> I think I like "Host Group" better. Still, I like the idea of "Host > >> Template" but I question how feasible it is (as Petr mentioned). > >> > >> David > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: "Tom McKay" <thoma...@redhat.com > > >> > To: forem...@googlegroups.com > >> > Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 8:22:43 AM > >> > Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Host Groups should be renamed to Host > >> (Configuration) Templates > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > > This has been discussed before but I thought I'd bring this up > >> again here. > >> > > > >> > > When Foreman is used with Katello we have the concept of "System > >> Groups" > >> > > (soon to be "Host Collections" - > >> > > https://github.com/Katello/katello/pull/4050) and "Host Groups". > >> These two > >> > > drastically different concepts are named so similarly (especially > >> after the > >> > > rename to "Host Collections") that they will readily cause > confusion. > >> > > > >> > > Moreover, even when Foreman is used without Katello, the term > >> "Host Group" > >> > > isn't accurate. If you look at the following definitions (both > from > >> > > Google) > >> > > it becomes apparent that our current "Host Groups" are actually > "Host > >> > > Templates" or "Host Configuration Templates". > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > group (gro͞op/) > >> > > noun > >> > > 1. a number of people or things that are located close together or > >> are > >> > > considered or classed together. > >> > > > >> > > tem·plate (ˈtemplət/) > >> > > noun > >> > > 1. a shaped piece of metal, wood, card, plastic, or other material > >> used as > >> > > a > >> > > pattern for processes such as painting, cutting out, shaping, or > >> drilling. > >> > > - COMPUTING: a preset format for a document or file, used so > >> that the > >> > > format does not have to be recreated each time it is used. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > I propose that we rename Foreman's Host "Groups" to Host Templates > >> since it > >> > > is a more accurate term. Another benefit from doing so is that > >> Katello > >> > > could then use the term "Host Groups" and not cause undue > >> confusion by > >> > > introducing two similarly named concepts that are so drastically > >> different. > >> > > > >> > > Thoughts? > >> > > > >> > > Cheers, > >> > > Walden > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups > >> > > "foreman-dev" group. > >> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >> send an > >> > > email to foreman-dev...@googlegroups.com . > >> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >> > > > >> > > >> > +1 to "Host Template" and "Host Collection" > >> > > >> > To further muddy the waters, though, there is also the need to bring > >> the > >> > concepts of a provisioning template (Host Group) and a content > template > >> > (Activation Key). Perhaps Host Template could be the landing ground > for > >> > merging these two concepts? > >> > > >> > -- > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> Groups > >> > "foreman-dev" group. > >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > >> send an > >> > email to foreman-dev...@googlegroups.com . > >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >> > > >> > > > > > -- > Solvention Ltd. & Co. KG > St.-Sebastianus-Str. 5 > 51147 Köln > > Tel: +49 2203 989967-0 > Fax: +49 2203 989967-9 > > http://www.solvention.de > mailto:in...@solvention.de >
9

>
>
> I really dislike the "Host Template" thing.
> Changing a template doesn't change the Object that was created using the Template.
> I feel that for computer purposes a Template is a default object that gets copied when I create a new object. Afaict that's not what "Host Groups" in foreman does right now and thus I think it is the wrong term.
>
> You could call it "Host Set" or "Host Class" though.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas

I agree, template doesn't seem to work for a change that will retroactively affect hosts. What about Host Policies?

–Derek

··· > On May 7, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Andreas Rogge wrote:

Am 07.05.2014 15:25, schrieb Brad Buckingham:

It would be great to hear feedback from users. From my point of view,
‘host template’ seems more appropriate than ‘host group’. I’ve even
heard it described by developers as a template when sharing with others
what it represents.

As for feasibility, if we were able to change ‘system’ to ‘content host’
and ‘system group’ to ‘host collection’, it should be feasible. That
said, after doing those other name changes, I can attest to it being a
lot of grunt work.

thanks,
Brad

On 05/07/2014 09:02 AM, David Davis wrote:
I think I like “Host Group” better. Still, I like the idea of “Host
Template” but I question how feasible it is (as Petr mentioned).

David

----- Original Message -----

From: “Tom McKay” thomasmckay@redhat.com
To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 8:22:43 AM
Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Host Groups should be renamed to Host
(Configuration) Templates

----- Original Message -----

This has been discussed before but I thought I’d bring this up
again here.

When Foreman is used with Katello we have the concept of “System
Groups”
(soon to be “Host Collections” -
fixes #5191/#5193 - rename System Groups to Host Collections by bbuckingham · Pull Request #4050 · Katello/katello · GitHub) and “Host Groups”.
These two
drastically different concepts are named so similarly (especially
after the
rename to “Host Collections”) that they will readily cause confusion.

Moreover, even when Foreman is used without Katello, the term
“Host Group”
isn’t accurate. If you look at the following definitions (both from
Google)
it becomes apparent that our current “Host Groups” are actually “Host
Templates” or “Host Configuration Templates”.

group (gro͞op/)
noun

  1. a number of people or things that are located close together or
    are
    considered or classed together.

tem·plate (ˈtemplət/)
noun

  1. a shaped piece of metal, wood, card, plastic, or other material
    used as
    a
    pattern for processes such as painting, cutting out, shaping, or
    drilling.
  • COMPUTING: a preset format for a document or file, used so
    that the
    format does not have to be recreated each time it is used.

I propose that we rename Foreman’s Host “Groups” to Host Templates
since it
is a more accurate term. Another benefit from doing so is that
Katello
could then use the term “Host Groups” and not cause undue
confusion by
introducing two similarly named concepts that are so drastically
different.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Walden

–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
“foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

+1 to “Host Template” and “Host Collection”

To further muddy the waters, though, there is also the need to bring
the
concepts of a provisioning template (Host Group) and a content template
(Activation Key). Perhaps Host Template could be the landing ground for
merging these two concepts?

–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
“foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

–
Solvention Ltd. & Co. KG
St.-Sebastianus-Str. 5
51147 Köln

Tel: +49 2203 989967-0
Fax: +49 2203 989967-9

http://www.solvention.de
mailto:info@solvention.de

–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

10

> I really dislike the "Host Template" thing.
> Changing a template doesn't change the Object that was created using the
> Template.
> I feel that for computer purposes a Template is a default object that
> gets copied when I create a new object. Afaict that's not what "Host
> Groups" in foreman does right now and thus I think it is the wrong term.
>
> You could call it "Host Set" or "Host Class" though.

You are right I like "Host Class".

··· On 07.05.14 19:14, Andreas Rogge wrote:

Regards,
Andreas

Am 07.05.2014 15:25, schrieb Brad Buckingham:

It would be great to hear feedback from users. From my point of view,
‘host template’ seems more appropriate than ‘host group’. I’ve even
heard it described by developers as a template when sharing with others
what it represents.

As for feasibility, if we were able to change ‘system’ to ‘content host’
and ‘system group’ to ‘host collection’, it should be feasible. That
said, after doing those other name changes, I can attest to it being a
lot of grunt work.

thanks,
Brad

On 05/07/2014 09:02 AM, David Davis wrote:

I think I like “Host Group” better. Still, I like the idea of “Host
Template” but I question how feasible it is (as Petr mentioned).

David

----- Original Message -----

From: “Tom McKay” thomasmckay@redhat.com
To: foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 8:22:43 AM
Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Host Groups should be renamed to Host
(Configuration) Templates

----- Original Message -----

This has been discussed before but I thought I’d bring this up
again here.

When Foreman is used with Katello we have the concept of “System
Groups”
(soon to be “Host Collections” -
fixes #5191/#5193 - rename System Groups to Host Collections by bbuckingham · Pull Request #4050 · Katello/katello · GitHub) and “Host Groups”.
These two
drastically different concepts are named so similarly (especially
after the
rename to “Host Collections”) that they will readily cause
confusion.

Moreover, even when Foreman is used without Katello, the term
“Host Group”
isn’t accurate. If you look at the following definitions (both from
Google)
it becomes apparent that our current “Host Groups” are actually
“Host
Templates” or “Host Configuration Templates”.

group (gro͞op/)
noun

  1. a number of people or things that are located close together or
    are
    considered or classed together.

tem·plate (ˈtemplət/)
noun

  1. a shaped piece of metal, wood, card, plastic, or other material
    used as
    a
    pattern for processes such as painting, cutting out, shaping, or
    drilling.
  • COMPUTING: a preset format for a document or file, used so
    that the
    format does not have to be recreated each time it is used.

I propose that we rename Foreman’s Host “Groups” to Host Templates
since it
is a more accurate term. Another benefit from doing so is that
Katello
could then use the term “Host Groups” and not cause undue
confusion by
introducing two similarly named concepts that are so drastically
different.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Walden

–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
“foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

+1 to “Host Template” and “Host Collection”

To further muddy the waters, though, there is also the need to bring
the
concepts of a provisioning template (Host Group) and a content
template
(Activation Key). Perhaps Host Template could be the landing ground
for
merging these two concepts?

–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
“foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an
email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

11

>> You could call it "Host Set" or "Host Class" though.
> You are right I like "Host Class".

"class" is a loaded term, it will get confused with puppet classes.
I'm in favour of keeping group - referring to Walden's originally
post:

> group (gro͞op/)
> noun
> 1. a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.

I would argue a collection of one or more hosts which share (for
example) a common operating system or common networks would indeed be
"classed together". Therfore the use of "group" is not wrong from a
lexical standpoint.

I have heard the term "Host Definition" passed around which might be
acceptable but overall i'm +1 for staying with group - mainly to avoid
user disruption.

Greg

··· On 9 May 2014 13:29, Petr Chalupa wrote: > On 07.05.14 19:14, Andreas Rogge wrote:
12

Greg Sutcliffe summed it up well, in my opinion. I agree with keeping it
as-is.

Thanks,

Greg

··· On Friday, May 9, 2014 6:53:06 AM UTC-7, Greg Sutcliffe wrote: > > On 9 May 2014 13:29, Petr Chalupa <pcha...@redhat.com > > wrote: > > On 07.05.14 19:14, Andreas Rogge wrote: > >> You could call it "Host Set" or "Host Class" though. > > You are right I like "Host Class". > > "class" is a loaded term, it will get confused with puppet classes. > I'm in favour of keeping group - referring to Walden's originally > post: > > > group (gro͞op/) > > noun > > 1. a number of people or things that are located close together or are > considered or classed together. > > I would argue a collection of one or more hosts which share (for > example) a common operating system or common networks would indeed be > "classed together". Therfore the use of "group" is not wrong from a > lexical standpoint. > > I have heard the term "Host Definition" passed around which might be > acceptable but overall i'm +1 for staying with group - mainly to avoid > user disruption. > > Greg >
13

>I would argue a collection of one or more hosts which share (for
>example) a common operating system or common networks would indeed be
>"classed together". Therfore the use of "group" is not wrong from a
>lexical standpoint.

I can agree with your argument from a purely semantic and academic standpoint.

However, if you asked someone unfamiliar with Foreman to define what a host group was I would wager they would say something like "oh, that must be a collection of hosts, I can add my hosts to a host group and then maybe perform actions on that group". But alas, you cannot.

Moreover, even the definition for a host group in Foreman refers to the group as a template:

"A host group is in some ways similar to an inherited node declaration, in that it is a high level grouping of classes that can be named and treated as a unit. This is then treated as a template and is selectable during the creation of a new host and ensures that the host is configured in one of your pre-defined states." [1]

Herein lies the confusion. A host group is a grouping of hosts that is treated as a template. Huh?

> I have heard the term "Host Definition" passed around which might be
> acceptable but overall i'm +1 for staying with group - mainly to avoid
> user disruption.

I understand the desire to avoid disruption and I want to weigh that against the benefit of preventing confusion for future users. I believe that this change will make for a better project.

Cheers,
Walden

[1] foreman/app/views/hostgroups/welcome.html.erb at develop · theforeman/foreman · GitHub

··· ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Sutcliffe" To: "Foreman ." Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 9:53:06 AM Subject: Re: [foreman-dev] Host Groups should be renamed to Host (Configuration) Templates

On 9 May 2014 13:29, Petr Chalupa pchalupa@redhat.com wrote:

On 07.05.14 19:14, Andreas Rogge wrote:

You could call it “Host Set” or “Host Class” though.
You are right I like “Host Class”.

“class” is a loaded term, it will get confused with puppet classes.
I’m in favour of keeping group - referring to Walden’s originally
post:

group (gro͞op/)
noun

  1. a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together.

I would argue a collection of one or more hosts which share (for
example) a common operating system or common networks would indeed be
“classed together”. Therfore the use of “group” is not wrong from a
lexical standpoint.

I have heard the term “Host Definition” passed around which might be
acceptable but overall i’m +1 for staying with group - mainly to avoid
user disruption.

Greg

–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

14

> However, if you asked someone unfamiliar with Foreman to define what a host group was I would wager they would say something like "oh, that must be a collection of hosts, I can add my hosts to a host group and then maybe perform actions on that group". But alas, you cannot.

Yes, you can. Host Groups can be used as matchers in smart parameters
/ class parameters, can contain global parameters of their own,
contain the definitions suitable for physical or logical grouping on
networks, and can be used as a search option in the main /hosts index
(from which you could search for hostgroup = 'foo' and then perform
actions on the whole group, such as rebuilding them or altering their
Org/Loc).

I have personally built Foreman systems where hosts had no data
attached directly to them, but inherited everything
(os/network/classes/parameters/etc) from the hostgroup. If that's not
what you just suggested a new user might expect, I'm missing
something.

> Moreover, even the definition for a host group in Foreman refers to the group as a template:
>
> "A host group is in some ways similar to an inherited node declaration, in that it is a high level grouping of classes that can be named and treated as a unit. This is then treated as a template and is selectable during the creation of a new host and ensures that the host is configured in one of your pre-defined states." [1]

I'd suggest a far less intrusive change is to update this rather old
text - the newest commit in git blame for this file is over a year
old now. I agree this description isn't very helpful.

Greg

··· On 9 May 2014 16:50, Walden Raines wrote:
15

>> However, if you asked someone unfamiliar with Foreman to define what a host group was I would wager they would say something like "oh, that must be a collection of hosts, I can add my hosts to a host group and then maybe perform actions on that group". But alas, you cannot.
>
> Yes, you can. Host Groups can be used as matchers in smart parameters
> / class parameters, can contain global parameters of their own,
> contain the definitions suitable for physical or logical grouping on
> networks, and can be used as a search option in the main /hosts index
> (from which you could search for hostgroup = 'foo' and then perform
> actions on the whole group, such as rebuilding them or altering their
> Org/Loc).
>
> I have personally built Foreman systems where hosts had no data
> attached directly to them, but inherited everything
> (os/network/classes/parameters/etc) from the hostgroup. If that's not
> what you just suggested a new user might expect, I'm missing
> something.

The biggest thing missing from Foreman host groups is many
per server. I think that’s a bit lacking: I want to be able to group
my hosts in multiple arbitrary namespaces. Maybe perform
actions on them too (see: Spacewalk System Set Manager), but
they wouldn’t have any strict associations.

Then, today’s version of Host Groups could move to “Host Profiles,”
or one of the other name suggestions.

··· On 09 May 2014, at 19:12, Greg Sutcliffe wrote: > On 9 May 2014 16:50, Walden Raines wrote:

Moreover, even the definition for a host group in Foreman refers to the group as a template:

“A host group is in some ways similar to an inherited node declaration, in that it is a high level grouping of classes that can be named and treated as a unit. This is then treated as a template and is selectable during the creation of a new host and ensures that the host is configured in one of your pre-defined states.” [1]

I’d suggest a far less intrusive change is to update this rather old
text - the newest commit in git blame for this file is over a year
old now. I agree this description isn’t very helpful.

Greg

–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “foreman-dev” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foreman-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

16

Katello introduces teh concept of system groups which is similar to what
you want. I wonder if we move to conolidate system groups and bookmarks?
It seems like a group is a tag which I can then search on.

– bk

··· On 05/09/2014 01:41 PM, Stephen Benjamin wrote: > On 09 May 2014, at 19:12, Greg Sutcliffe wrote: > >> On 9 May 2014 16:50, Walden Raines wrote: >>> However, if you asked someone unfamiliar with Foreman to define what a host group was I would wager they would say something like "oh, that must be a collection of hosts, I can add my hosts to a host group and then maybe perform actions on that group". But alas, you cannot. >> >> Yes, you can. Host Groups can be used as matchers in smart parameters >> / class parameters, can contain global parameters of their own, >> contain the definitions suitable for physical or logical grouping on >> networks, and can be used as a search option in the main /hosts index >> (from which you could search for hostgroup = 'foo' and then perform >> actions on the whole group, such as rebuilding them or altering their >> Org/Loc). >> >> I have personally built Foreman systems where hosts had no data >> attached directly to them, but inherited everything >> (os/network/classes/parameters/etc) from the hostgroup. If that's not >> what you just suggested a new user might expect, I'm missing >> something. > > The biggest thing missing from Foreman host groups is many > per server. I think that’s a bit lacking: I want to be able to group > my hosts in multiple arbitrary namespaces. Maybe perform > actions on them too (see: Spacewalk System Set Manager), but > they wouldn’t have any strict associations. > > Then, today’s version of Host Groups could move to “Host Profiles,” > or one of the other name suggestions.
17

Arbitrary tags is a good solution.

··· On 09 May 2014, at 19:52, Bryan Kearney wrote:

On 05/09/2014 01:41 PM, Stephen Benjamin wrote:

On 09 May 2014, at 19:12, Greg Sutcliffe greg.sutcliffe@gmail.com wrote:

On 9 May 2014 16:50, Walden Raines walden@redhat.com wrote:

However, if you asked someone unfamiliar with Foreman to define what a host group was I would wager they would say something like “oh, that must be a collection of hosts, I can add my hosts to a host group and then maybe perform actions on that group”. But alas, you cannot.

Yes, you can. Host Groups can be used as matchers in smart parameters
/ class parameters, can contain global parameters of their own,
contain the definitions suitable for physical or logical grouping on
networks, and can be used as a search option in the main /hosts index
(from which you could search for hostgroup = ‘foo’ and then perform
actions on the whole group, such as rebuilding them or altering their
Org/Loc).

I have personally built Foreman systems where hosts had no data
attached directly to them, but inherited everything
(os/network/classes/parameters/etc) from the hostgroup. If that’s not
what you just suggested a new user might expect, I’m missing
something.

The biggest thing missing from Foreman host groups is many
per server. I think that’s a bit lacking: I want to be able to group
my hosts in multiple arbitrary namespaces. Maybe perform
actions on them too (see: Spacewalk System Set Manager), but
they wouldn’t have any strict associations.

Then, today’s version of Host Groups could move to “Host Profiles,”
or one of the other name suggestions.

Katello introduces teh concept of system groups which is similar to what you want. I wonder if we move to conolidate system groups and bookmarks? It seems like a group is a tag which I can then search on.

— bk

–
Stephen Benjamin
stephen@bitbin.de