Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
----- Original Message -----
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:46:44 PM
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com>
> > > To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow(a)redhat.com>
> > > Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Simon Grinberg"
> > > <sgrinber(a)redhat.com>,
> > > "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com>, "Geert
> > > Jansen" <gjansen(a)redhat.com>, "Ori Liel"
<oliel(a)redhat.com>,
> > > "Yair
> > > Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>, "Ayal Baron"
> > > <abaron(a)redhat.com>, "Miki Kenneth"
<mkenneth(a)redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 2:05:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been
> > > updated
> > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > The important thing is that it's clear what it is - eg. the
> > > > remote/target not the local mount point. That could be
> > > > accomplished
> > > > in the tool tip, etc.
> > >
> > > So if there will be a tool-tip (or similar) in the GUI
> > > explaining
> > > what this field is supposed to be, are you OK with keeping the
> > > term
> > > "Path" (in both GUI and rest-api)?
> >
> > I am , does everyone else agree.
>
> either 'path' or 'device'
- "Path" it is.
- Instead of a tool-tip, I suggest to use an explanation caption
below the text-box (similar to what we have for NFS storage domain -
see attached). Agreed?
i.e. "Path to device to mount / remote export" or something?
- What should be the exact phrasing of the explanation text?
> "mount [-fnrsvw] [-t vfstype] [-o options] device dir"
>
> device is what is being mounted and in the case of NFS is
> server:path
>
> There is a reason why we termed it PosixFS and not SharedFS and
> that
> users can specify local devices/FS's (and there is no reason to
> limit it).
>
> Note that if user defines a local FS and adds 2 hosts to the Posix
> FS
> DC then 1 host will be non-op
>
> Miki - this is not cluster level seeing as PosixFS is a DC type
> (afaik) so no need for tooltips about that.
>
> In the future when we get rid of the single storage type in DC
> limitation then we'll be able to define a local posixFS domain and
> a
> shared one.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Andrew/Geert/Simon/Ayal/Miki/Saggi/others: Please feel free
> > > > > to
> > > > > suggest a new term, or vote for one of the
> > > > > previously-discussed
> > > > > terms ("Remote Path" / "Path" / "Mount
Spec" / "File System
> > > > > URI").
> > > > > If no decision will be made here, the term will remain
> > > > > as-is,
> > > > > i.e.
> > > > > "Path".
> > > > >
> > > > ...
> > >
> >
>