# unified naming convention for virt/cloud platforms

**URL:** <https://forum.ansible.com/t/unified-naming-convention-for-virt-cloud-platforms/13119>\
**Category:** Ansible Project\
**Created:** [July 14, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/unified-naming-convention-for-virt-cloud-platforms/13119 "2013-07-14T20:52:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Vincent\_Van\_der\_Kuss](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7c8e57/32.png) [@Vincent\_Van\_der\_Kuss](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Vincent_Van_der_Kuss)\
**Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/unified-naming-convention-for-virt-cloud-platforms/13119/1 "2013-07-14T20:52:35Z")

</div>

Hi,

I'm currently working on an oVirt/RHEV module which is shaping up  
nicely. But I've some doubts about the naming convention for the  
several options like vm name, vm disk size, memory size,

There are already several modules for all the different platforms and  
they all use different names for these option which could make if  
quite confusing if you happen to use several of these.

For instance, do we call a virtual machine a VM or Instance? Cloud  
platforms seem to like using "Instance" while virt platforms rather  
use VM.

There will of course always be options specific to a certain product,  
but a lot of them are common to all of them.

Would it be worth the effort of discussing this?

--Vincent.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_DeHaan2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Michael\_DeHaan2](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Michael_DeHaan2)\
**Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/unified-naming-convention-for-virt-cloud-platforms/13119/2 "2013-07-14T22:07:51Z")

</div>

ec2 came first, I would copy what is done there and in others go in and add aliases to where they support the same.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jesse\_Keating](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3bc359/32.png) [@Jesse\_Keating](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Jesse_Keating)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/unified-naming-convention-for-virt-cloud-platforms/13119/3 "2013-07-16T23:50:11Z")

</div>

I'm of the opinion that the specific cloud provider should support the nomenclature native to the provider it's working with. For a common naming scheme, that can be accomplished with aliases.

-jlk

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_DeHaan2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/da6949/32.png) [@Michael\_DeHaan2](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Michael_DeHaan2)\
**Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/unified-naming-convention-for-virt-cloud-platforms/13119/4 "2013-07-16T23:54:02Z")

</div>

To some extent maybe? For something that basic I think standardizing on instance is ok.

We have examples of returning ‘instances’ for use with add\_host, and should be consistent with that.