On 05/10/2012 05:16 PM, Andrew Cathrow wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com> To: "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth@redhat.com> Cc: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com>, "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com>, "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com>, "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber@redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh@redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <info@eldanet.com>, "Alexey Chub" <achub@redhat.com>, engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Haim Ateya" <hateya@redhat.com>, "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:14:32 AM Subject: Re: PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
On 05/10/2012 04:46 PM, Miki Kenneth wrote:
we should had a mouseover tooltip for explaining what is PosixFS and mentioned that it is supported only in 3.1 cluster. Miki
----- Original Message -----
From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com> Cc: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com>, "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com>, "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth@redhat.com>, "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber@redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh@redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <info@eldanet.com>, "Alexey Chub" <achub@redhat.com>, engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Haim Ateya" <hateya@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:28:31 PM Subject: Re: PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
----- Original Message ----- From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@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? This is important - it may yield a change to REST-API. Ayal?
The validation should be not empty, after than anything goes.
Ori - this means we should model REST-API differently, and not as I thought (current REST-API implementation will not be able to pass mountSpec without ":" to backend). I will summon a meeting on Sunday to close that ASAP
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