----- Original Message ----- From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:39:42 AM
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:46:44 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen@redhat.com> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow@redhat.com> Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org, "Simon Grinberg" <sgrinber@redhat.com>, "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi@redhat.com>, "Geert Jansen" <gjansen@redhat.com>, "Ori Liel" <oliel@redhat.com>, "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs@redhat.com>, "Ayal Baron" <abaron@redhat.com>, "Miki Kenneth" <mkenneth@redhat.com> 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?
- 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". > ...