Re: [ovirt-devel] how to call the SW part of instance type?

From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt;, "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:16:46 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] how to call the SW part of instance type? On 06/04/2014 02:29 PM, Michal Skrivanek wrote: > > On Jun 2, 2014, at 18:45 , Einav Cohen <ecohen(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 12:20:25 PM >>> >>> >>> On 31 May 2014, at 15:41, Andrew Cathrow wrote: >>> >>>> On 05/30/2014 01:07 PM, Einav Cohen wrote: >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:17:27 AM >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey all, >>>>>> >>>>>> in the instance type feature [1] there are two parts, the "instance >>>>>> types" >>>>>> (HW part of the machine) and the "something not sure how to call" >>>>>> (which >>>>>> is >>>>>> basically a disk image with some SW related metadata like OS type). It >>>>>> is >>>>>> inspired by the Amazon's "Instance Type" + "AMI". >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently, the handling of the HW part is merged upstream (some small >>>>>> parts >>>>>> missing but mostly there) but the software part is not. I'd like to >>>>>> start >>>>>> implementing it and wanted to ask the community how to call it. >>>>>> Normally >>>>>> it >>>>>> would be called "image", but since we already have images in oVirt it >>>>>> would >>>>>> be confusing. >>>>>> >>>>>> I see this options how to call it, please feel free to comment on >>>>>> them, >>>>>> vote >>>>>> for some or propose a new name (please keep in mind that the HW part >>>>>> is >>>>>> called "Instance Type"). >>>>>> >>>>>> - Instance Image >>>>>> - Software Profile >>>>>> - OMI (oVirt Machine Image) >>>>> >>>>> IMO, any of the three above will do. >>>>> >>>>>> - System Image >>>>> >>>>> this is too confusing - we already have 'System' in the application >>>>> (e.g. >>>>> the >>>>> 'System' tree, 'System' permissions, etc.) and we already have 'Image' >>>>> in >>>>> the >>>>> application (in multiple places, actually, which is confusing already). >>>>> Introducing a new 'System Image' type that has nothing to do with the >>>>> existing >>>>> 'System' or with the existing 'Image' is very confusing. >>>>> >>>>>> - ITI (Instance Type Image) >>>>> >>>>> this is confusing as well since it might be considered part / sub-type >>>>> of >>>>> the >>>>> Instance Types business entity, which is wrong. >>>> >>>> And why not image? >>> >>> +1 >>> I don't think it's too much exposed currently, so I would be also for >>> using a >>> plain "image" for the "new" Instance-type related Image. >>> The "Image" subcategory in Disks tab can be easily renamed to e.g. disk >>> images >> >> we also have the "Images" sub-tab in the Storage main tab (for ISO >> domains) >> which needs to be renamed as well IMO in order to avoid confusion. >> and if we will have "disk image" (for current Virtual Disks images) and >> "[whatever] image" (for current ISO images), I think that it makes sense >> to not introduce new plain "image", but another "[whatever] image", e.g. >> "Instance Image" or OMI, or something completely different such as >> "Software >> Profile". > > I guess we can go with "Instance Image" for now we can easily change the gui, but not the rest api... I admit i kind of like the OMI suggestion, but not sure why this image is not just an Image or Disk Image.

> But I have in mind some bigger reshuffle regarding storage's tabs which > would clarify the flows and naming, let's discuss that later… > Also that "Volumes" gluster tab probably doesn't make too much sense > longterm. > > Thanks, > michal > >> >>> What would also maybe make sense is to get rid of top level Disks tab, >>> "hide" >>> it as Quota, and create a new "Images" main tab. Or move current "Images" >>> and "Direct LUNs" as a sub-category of Images toplevel tab (but since >>> they >>> are different entities I'd rather keep it completely separate) >>> >>> It may be a bit more confusing for volumes because of gluster's top level >>> tab >>> >>> Thanks, >>> michal >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> Tomas >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Instance_Types >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Devel mailing list >>>>>> Devel(a)ovirt.org >>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Devel mailing list >>>>> Devel(a)ovirt.org >>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Devel mailing list >>>> Devel(a)ovirt.org >>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel