----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com> Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber@redhat.com>, "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com>, "Geert Jansen" <gjansen@redhat.com>, "Ori Liel" <oliel@redhat.com>, "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com>, "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth@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".
...