Code review comment for lp:~michihenning/unity-scopes-api/scope-cache-dir

There are plans to support the local content scope at some point and so I don't see any harm in using 'leaf-fs' for it. There is no reason why we couldn't also provide an aggregator template for us and trusted 3rd parties to use to help confine the scope somewhat (we just wouldn't make it available to unknown 3rd party developers). As for 'aggregator' vs 'unconfined', I personally like the idea of expressing the functionality there. While 'leaf-net', 'leaf-fs', 'aggregator' or anything else does have to do with what is expressed in the apparmor policy for the specified template, I'm not sure you want to have to worry about what templates are defined and what aren't in your code. Wouldn't it be best to just use these 3 different types so that if we ever supply the templates at a future date nothing in your code has to change?