Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated

From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com&gt;, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Geert Jansen" <gjansen(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Ori Liel" <oliel(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:05:23 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated On 05/11/2012 11:28 PM, Einav Cohen wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:03:04 PM >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:39:42 AM >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:46:44 PM >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>> From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>>> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>>> Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Simon Grinberg" >>>>>>>> <sgrinber(a)redhat.com&gt;, >>>>>>>> "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Geert >>>>>>>> Jansen" <gjansen(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Ori Liel" >>>>>>>> <oliel(a)redhat.com&gt;, >>>>>>>> "Yair >>>>>>>> Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Ayal Baron" >>>>>>>> <abaron(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>>>> 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. +1 on "path" and this was my original implementation by the way. >>>>> - 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? >>> >>> Yes, that's a good answer to the question afterwards :) >>> But what do you think about the general idea of using an >>> explanation >>> caption below the "Path" text-box (instead of a tool-tip that was >>> suggested here earlier)? >>> >>> Also, do you think that the above should be the exact phrasing? >>> The >>> NFS one is: >>> "Please use 'FQDN:/path' or 'IP:/path' Example >>> 'server.example.com:/export/VMs'" >>> so maybe a "Please use" should be incorporated in this case as >>> well, >>> maybe also an example, etc. >>> What do you think? >> >> I replied after viewing the other message and disliking it >> (personal >> opinion). I prefer a static explanation (what the field is) >> rather >> than an action request. >> So in the NFS example I would've phrased it as "Remote path to NFS >> export, takes either the form: FQDN:/path or IP:/path, e.g. >> server.example.com:/export/VMs". >> But in any event it is better to have consistency (so both >> messages >> should probably be phrased similarly). > > There is no problem changing the phrasing for NFS. > > So for NFS, the caption will be: > "Remote path to NFS export, takes either the form: FQDN:/path or > IP:/path, e.g. server.example.com:/export/VMs". > > And for PosixFS, the caption will be: > "Path to device to mount / remote export". > (no 'takes the form' or example provided) > > Agreed? > >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> - 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". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>