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

[Einav Cohen]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron at redhat.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:03:04 PM
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron at redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:39:42 AM
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- 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?
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> I replied after viewing the other message and disliking it (personal
> opinion).  I prefer a static explanation (what the field is) rather
> than an action request.
> So in the NFS example I would've phrased it as "Remote path to NFS
> export, takes either the form: FQDN:/path or IP:/path, e.g.
> server.example.com:/export/VMs".
> But in any event it is better to have consistency (so both messages
> should probably be phrased similarly).

There is no problem changing the phrasing for NFS.

So for NFS, the caption will be:
"Remote path to NFS export, takes either the form: FQDN:/path or IP:/path, e.g. server.example.com:/export/VMs".

And for PosixFS, the caption will be:
"Path to device to mount / remote export".
(no 'takes the form' or example provided)

Agreed?

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