10:03 a.m.
just sending to a bigger group to cover all people which were part of the decision process
to not make them surprised if we will change it :)
@Itamar, Andrew, Michal: just quickly summarize this thread:
Daniel have started to review the instance types related patches and has two concerns
about the static header containing DC, Cluster etc.:
1: does not see the point of showing DC, Cluster etc for most of the side tabs (e.g.
console)
2: if there is indeed a point, why not change all the dialogs with side tabs to have the
static header e.g. new cluster. (please note that the currently
reviewed patch implements this static header to all VM related dialogs like
pool,template,vm)
regards,
Tomas
PS: I don't know if any of you have seen my comments on rhev-dep about having the
reviewer assigned from the beginning, but imagine how
awesome it would be having Daniel on our instance types meetings from the beginning,
making him the part of the feature and having this
questions already discussed, so by now he would be perfectly comfortable with the design,
understand the motivation and agreed with it,
so now he would only review the specific implementation (while he would already know my
important code-design decisions and be part of them).
Don't get me wrong Daniel, I find your concerns extremely valid and worth discussing
and thank you for rising them!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Erez" <derez(a)redhat.com>
To: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Malini Rao" <mrao(a)redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim"
<info(a)eldanet.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh(a)redhat.com>,
"Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek(a)redhat.com>, "engine-devel"
<engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 7:36:03 AM
Subject: Re: static header only in VM dialog?
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Daniel Erez" <derez(a)redhat.com>, "Malini Rao"
<mrao(a)redhat.com>,
> "Eldan Hildesheim" <info(a)eldanet.com>, "Eldan
> Hildesheim" <ehildesh(a)redhat.com>, "Tomas Jelinek"
<tjelinek(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 2:30:09 AM
> Subject: Re: static header only in VM dialog?
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Daniel Erez" <derez(a)redhat.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:18:20 PM
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com>
> > > To: "Malini Rao" <mrao(a)redhat.com>, "Eldan
Hildesheim"
> > > <info(a)eldanet.com>,
> > > "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh(a)redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek(a)redhat.com>,
derez(a)redhat.com,
> > > "engine-devel"
> > > <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:53:47 AM
> > > Subject: static header only in VM dialog?
> > >
> > > when reviewing the code for the "redesign of vm related
dialogs",
> > > Daniel
> > > has
> > > raised an interesting question: Why do we want the static header only
> > > in
> > > VM
> > > dialog?
> > >
> > > (I assume that he refers to the top section of the New VM dialog as
> > > seen
> > > in
> > > [1], which
> > > contains the DC/Cluster, Quota, etc information, and is
"static", i.e.,
> > > it
> > > is
> > > always
> > > displayed, regardless of the selected side-tab within the dialog)
> > >
> > > I agree with what Daniel is implying here: for consistency, we would
> > > probably
> > > want to
> > > introduce this static header to other dialogs, at least to the ones
> > > that
> > > also
> > > contain
> > > side-tabs in which it makes sense to turn the "header" to
static
> > > [e.g.
> > > "New Host" (which contains a DC + Cluster "header") -
see
> > > http://oi39.tinypic.com/2z84xnp.jpg,
> > > "New Cluster" (which contains a DC "header") - see
> > > http://oi40.tinypic.com/2vmyj2x.jpg]
> > >
> > > [I assume, of course, that all the VM-like dialogs (e.g. New/Edit
> > > VM-Pool)
> > > will also have
> > > static headers - I don't know if the patch already takes care of that
> > > or
> > > not]
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > [@Daniel - if you had something else in mind, and/or other dialogs in
> > > mind
> > > -
> > > please feel free
> > > to add/amend/etc]
> >
> > Besides consistency matters, I wanted to understand what's the motivation
> > of
> > keeping these widgets static. I.e. is it an essential preparation for the
> > new
> > instance type dialog or a new concept for tab based dialogs
> > (as DC/Cluster values aren't necessarily relevant for each tab in the
> > dialog)
>
> [maybe Tomas/Eldan/Malini can help here as well]
>
> these static widgets (as well as the type ahead list box [1], for example)
> are part of
> the instance types feature that had its design details published in [2] and
> [3], and the
> implementation was done according to this design. I don't see any reason to
> not utilize
> this newly-introduced concept in other side-tab-based dialogs as well, if
> it
> makes sense
> (ui consistency considerations are sufficient, IMO, but I could be wrong -
> maybe it is
> relevant/correct to introduce this new concept only in the VM-like
> dialogs).
>
> regarding the specific concern about the DC/Cluster values that aren't
> necessarily relevant
> for each side-tab in the dialog: I agree with that statement, however:
>
> - putting the "Instance Type" drop-down at the top static section is very
> useful (see [4]
> for explanation), and as the Instance Types list is derived from the
> selected
> DC, it makes
> sense (to me) to put the DC in that top static section as well.
>
> - the DC/Cluster are relevant for some of the tabs in the dialog (Host,
> Resource Allocation?)
Only for Host.
Resource Allocation is directly affected by the selected template.
Therefore, it sounds very confusing to me...
Unless we add template to the static header as well?
(which will be odd for the other tabs).
So I still don't get the motivation UX-wise.
E.g. it seems really weird to change the entire DC from Console tab
(or, as a matter of fact, from most other tabs).
In the new instance type dialog, which tabs could be directly affected by
DC/Cluster?
IIUC, only Host? Do we really need a static header just for this tab?
> so for consistency-within-the-dialog considerations, it is probably a good
> idea to simply
> always show these fields within this top static section.
>
> [there is a good chance that I am missing your point here - please correct
> me
> if necessary]
>
> [1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/14936/
>
> [2] http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Instance_Types
>
> [3] http://www.ovirt.org/images/9/9e/Instance_type.pdf
>
> [4] whenever changing the "Instance Type" value, you can automatically
see
> how these changes
> affect the fields in the current tab on which you are standing (e.g. if you
> are standing on
> the "System" side-tab, you can change the "Instance Type"
selected item and
> immediately see
> the changes within the "System" side-tab contents), and vice-versa: if
you
> are changing a value
> that was originally propagated from the instance-type, you will see the
> instance-type automatically
> change to "custom"/"not applicable" as a result, so no need to
"jump"
> between
> side-tabs in order
> to observe these changes.
>
> >
> > >
> > > ----
> > > Thanks,
> > > Einav
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.ovirt.org/images/9/9e/Instance_type.pdf
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: derez(a)redhat.com
> > > > To: "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: "Vojtech Szocs" <vszocs(a)redhat.com>, "Einav
Cohen"
> > > > <ecohen(a)redhat.com>,
> > > > "Frank Kobzik" <fkobzik(a)redhat.com>,
> > > > "Eldan Hildesheim" <info(a)eldanet.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:05:38 PM
> > > > Subject: Change in ovirt-engine[master]: userportal,webadmin:
> > > > redesign
> > > > of
> > > > vm related dialogs
> > > >
> > > > Daniel Erez has posted comments on this change.
> > > >
> > > > Change subject: userportal,webadmin: redesign of vm related dialogs
> > > >
......................................................................
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Patch Set 5: (1 inline comment)
> > > >
> > > > Code looks good.
> > > > A few questions regarding the design:
> > > > 1. Why do we want the static header only in VM dialog?
> > > > 2. DC/Host are really relevant for all tabs?
> > > > 3. Is it just a preparation for the final instance type dialog?
> > > > 4. If it's indeed merely preparation, shouldn't it be merged
only
> > > > once
> > > > we
> > > > have the full picture of the new dialog?
> > > >
> > > > ....................................................
> > > > File
> > > >
frontend/webadmin/modules/gwt-common/src/main/java/org/ovirt/engine/ui/common/widget/dialog/tab/DialogTabPanel.ui.xml
> > > > Line 21:
> > > > Line 22: .header {
> > > > Line 23: background-color: #D3D3D3;
> > > > Line 24: border-bottom: 1px solid #CED8DF;
> > > > Line 25: margin-bottom: 15px;
> > > > is it supposed to be that large?
> > > > Line 26: padding-top: 6px;
> > > > Line 27: margin-top: 4px;
> > > > Line 28: margin-right: 3px;
> > > > Line 29: display: none;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > To view, visit http://gerrit.ovirt.org/14635
> > > > To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.ovirt.org/settings
> > > >
> > > > Gerrit-MessageType: comment
> > > > Gerrit-Change-Id: Icad8098e286f821da25fac22fd0a840a42f105c9
> > > > Gerrit-PatchSet: 5
> > > > Gerrit-Project: ovirt-engine
> > > > Gerrit-Branch: master
> > > > Gerrit-Owner: Tomas Jelinek <tjelinek(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Gerrit-Reviewer: Daniel Erez <derez(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Gerrit-Reviewer: Einav Cohen <ecohen(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Gerrit-Reviewer: Eldan Hildesheim <info(a)eldanet.com>
> > > > Gerrit-Reviewer: Frank Kobzik <fkobzik(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Gerrit-Reviewer: Tomas Jelinek <tjelinek(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Gerrit-Reviewer: Vojtech Szocs <vszocs(a)redhat.com>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
