9:57 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com>
To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com>, "Yair Zaslavsky"
<yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Haim Ateya" <hateya(a)redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim"
<info(a)eldanet.com>, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Eldan
Hildesheim" <ehildesh(a)redhat.com>, "Simon Grinberg"
<sgrinber(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:51:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:39:49 PM
>
> I do express that empty mount options SHOULD NOT send an empty
> string, rather, omit the whole argument.
Yes, this should be handled on the backend side (Yair - please note,
maybe it is already implemented like this - don't know): When
getting a null-or-empty "mount options" value from the client, the
backend needs to make sure to *not* set the relevant parameter in
the vdsm verb at all.
So leaving the "mount options" text-box empty in the GUI is legal,
only needs to be handled in a certain way in the backend.
In theory for a PosixFS file system a user could create multiple storage domains of
different PosixFS types. Perhaps that's not a problem, but worth noting.
Is "Path" the correct term to use for the remote mount? I can imagine customers
thinking that is local and messing with fstab.
Not sure if there's a better term - filesystem URI ?
I presume we are doing just not-null validation for path.
Obviously we can't validate the mount options but how good is the error reporting back
going to be - if the mount options are wrong, or if something fails with the mount will we
see "error 12345" in the UI and require the user to go digging in vdsm logs or
are we going to pull back and display toe complete message.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com>
> > To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>, "Ayal
Baron"
> > <abaron(a)redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com>, "Andrew
Cathrow"
> > <acathrow(a)redhat.com>, "Miki Kenneth"
> > <mkenneth(a)redhat.com>, "Simon Grinberg"
<sgrinber(a)redhat.com>,
> > "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh(a)redhat.com>, "Eldan
> > Hildesheim" <info(a)eldanet.com>, "Alexey Chub"
<achub(a)redhat.com>,
> > engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Haim Ateya"
> > <hateya(a)redhat.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:28:31 AM
> > Subject: Re: PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:21:42 PM
> > >
> > > On 05/10/2012 04:16 PM, Einav Cohen wrote:
> > > > Please review the mock-ups on the feature page:
> > > > http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/PosixFSConnection#Changes_in_GUI
> > > >
> > > > Comments are welcome.
> > >
> > > From talking to Haim I understood that path should include ":"
> >
> > From talking to Ayal, the path can be similar in its format to a
> > path
> > provided when creating an NFS storage domain (e.g.
> > "server:/dir1/dir2"), *or* to a path provided when creating a
> > Local
> > storage domain (e.g. "/tmp/dir3"), meaning, without ":".
> > @Ayal - any chance for a clarification here?
> >
> > > In addition - if we only support V1, why add the combo box?
> >
> > We are always showing the combo-box, even if we have only one
> > option
> > in it (so the user will know what is the value that is being
> > sent).
> > However, we disable it. I updated the mock-up to clarify this.
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ----
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Einav
> > >
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel