Re: [Engine-devel] the future of template cloning

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just to be clear, does this mean that the plan is to phase >>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> current clone template command and instead implementing a >>>>>>>> clone >>>>>>>> disk >>>>>>>> command so that a template can duplicate its disks >>>>>>>> individually? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> pretty much, yes. >>>>>>> though i'd imagine 'clone template' would still be useful to >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> the user. not sure if it implies core should expose it as >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> allow >>>>>>> easier usage at UI level for such a task. >>>>>> >>>>>> we can leave it untouched - means copyTemplate get 1 >>>>>> destination >>>>>> domain, and copies all disks to it, >>>>>> but i think it will be unusable (and problematic - what if one >>>>>> of >>>>>> the >>>>>> disks already exists on the destination?), >>>>> >>>>> then don't copy it, it is already there >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with Omer, there is no reason to support copy template, >>>> if >>>> the >>>> user wants to clone all the disks he can use multiple actions, >>>> we >>>> don't >>>> need a specific verb for this. >>> >>> Reason or lack of depends on the common usage. >>> If we assume that normally all disks of a template would reside >>> on >>> the same domain then it makes sense to have a verb to copy the >>> template in its entirety and not burden the user. >>> The general recommendation should be to use a single storage >>> domain, so I think there is room for such a verb. >>> >> >> >>>> If the UI chooses to expose such operation it will use the >>>> multipleRunAction API which makes it easier to expose to the >>>> user >>>> partial success, we could clone disk A and Disk B but Disk C >>>> failed >>>> etc. >>> >>> The multipleRunAction is for user marking multiple objects in GUI >>> and running an action on all of these objects. >> >> Exactly, choosing the disks to copy to the storage domain. > > Which is wrong because multipleRunAction assumes there are no > dependencies between the actions. In the case of copyTemplate the > user sees copying all disks as a single operation which should > either fail or succeed. Partial results are not clear and can > cause other problems. > Validations in this case should be on the entire set together, not > one by one, etc. > I think that using the multi action approach is the better behavior for the user. If the user clone a template with 3 disks and the engine was able to clone only two out of three (got an error on the third copy), As a user i would rather get a chance to clone the third one again and not re-clone the other two (it takes time...). So my vote goes to multi actions.