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

> ----- 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.

>>>> - 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". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >