Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
----- Original Message -----
----- 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'
"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".
> > >
> > ...
>