On 05/27/2014 06:44 AM, Gilad Chaplik wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oved Ourfalli" <ovedo@redhat.com> To: "Gilad Chaplik" <gchaplik@redhat.com> Cc: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com>, devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 1:30:43 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilad Chaplik" <gchaplik@redhat.com> To: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 1:27:10 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com> To: "Martin Perina" <mperina@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 12:39:17 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Perina" <mperina@redhat.com> To: "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 12:43:32 PM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> To: "Barak Azulay" <bazulay@redhat.com> Cc: devel@ovirt.org Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:37:23 AM Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Barak Azulay" <bazulay@redhat.com> > To: "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> > Cc: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com>, devel@ovirt.org > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 8:42:47 PM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> >> To: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com> >> Cc: devel@ovirt.org >> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 4:08:45 PM >> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Moti Asayag" <masayag@redhat.com> >>> To: "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> >>> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, devel@ovirt.org >>> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:33:06 PM >>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com> >>>> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> >>>> Cc: devel@ovirt.org >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 4:56:50 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> >>>>> To: devel@ovirt.org >>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 3:20:18 PM >>>>> Subject: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> I have a feeling there is some inconsistency in using >>>>> entity >>>>> names >>>>> in >>>>> the >>>>> DB >>>>> scripts. >>>>> For example, should we use Host or VDS? >>>>> I am not talking about existing tables or columns but about >>>>> new >>>>> ones >>>>> (and >>>>> new >>>>> stored procedures). >>>>> >>>>> I am quite sure I saw patches containing both approaches. >>> >>> I guess that includes any recent patches around the network >>> area. >>> >>>> >>>> You are right >>>> I think old should be kept until we have the time to do a >>>> global >>>> find/replace >>>> of all old names. >>> >>> Without enabling the "new" (or more appropriate) naming to new >>> code >>> we: >>> 1. Increase the amount of 'old' code in the system (gaining >>> more >>> debts) >>> 2. As a result - more work when and if global change will take >>> affect. >>> 3. Double the entire work flow: code + review. >>> >>> That change should start at some point, and having it >>> incrementally >>> is >>> a >>> valid approach >>> to achieve that goal. >> >> I basically agree, but first someone (that can say that) should >> say >> that >> we >> are going to do that and allocate resources to this tasks , >> unless >> , >> you >> are >> left in hybrid ugly condition > > > > Guys please post the list of Entities and let's agree on new names.
Top 3 :
StoragePool => DC VdsGroup => Cluster
IMO VdsGroup should be named MigrationDomain[1]. cluster is too general[2].
IMHO we should name it Cluster, just like it is in the UI.
I think the UI name it 'racimo' in Spanish, and समूह in Hindi, and not 'Cluster', you have a point on REST though.
I wouldn't change it into MigrationDomain. Moreover, in some cases VMs might not be able to migrate to all the hosts in the cluster, depending on your configuration, so it isn't even true at all times.
You only re-enforcing my argument :) MigrationDomain fits better than Cluster.
not when we are considering more granular migration domains inside clusters in the future as the scheduler gets more sophisticated. a cluster is a group of hosts providing a set of services. so far it was a migration domain. it may not be in the future.