[Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated

[Ayal Baron]

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


> - 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".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > ...
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>