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

Sun May 13 14:13:47 UTC 2012

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 4:51:31 PM
> 
> On 05/13/2012 02:04 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
> > On 05/13/2012 11:54 AM, Einav Cohen wrote:
> >> [top posting]
> >>
> >> GUI Mockup has been updated according to this thread:
> >> http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/PosixFSConnection#Changes_in_GUI
> >>
> >> Further comments are welcome.
> > 
> > - POSIX, not Posix.
> > - 'POSIX compliant FS', not 'PosixFS'
> > - I'd be happy if we could validate whatever we pass to the mount
> > command against command injection[1] .
> > 
> > Y.
> > [1] https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Command_Injection
> > 
> >>
> >> ----
> >> Thanks,
> >> Einav
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs at redhat.com>
> >>> To: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen at redhat.com>
> >>> Cc: "Ayal Baron" <abaron at redhat.com>, 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>, "Miki Kenneth"
> >>> <mkenneth at redhat.com>, "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow at redhat.com>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 10:05:23 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been
> >>> updated
> >>>
> >>> On 05/11/2012 11:28 PM, Einav Cohen wrote:
> >>>>> ----- 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.
> >>> +1 on "path" and this was my original implementation by the way.
> Now that I think of it - maybe we can have "Address" as optional
> argument  AND "Path" as mandatory at REST-API?
> Examples -
> address: 10.35.16.36
> path: /export/share1
> 
> Will be translated to mountSpec of "10.35.16.36:/export/share1"
> 
> path: /home/someuser/domain1
> 
> Will be translated to mounSpec of "/home/some/user/domain1".
> 
> Thoughts on this?

+1

It is more compliant with the already-existing NFS storage domain representation in rest-api (that also uses "address" and "path" in the same manner).

This is, of course, assuming that we can enforce "address" as mandatory for NFS storage domain and treat it as optional for POSIX storage domain.

Geert/Ori/Michael - any thoughts about this?

> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> - 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".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Engine-devel mailing list
> >> Engine-devel at ovirt.org
> >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
> > 
> 
> 