[ovirt-devel] how to call the SW part of instance type?

[Einav Cohen]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek at redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 12:20:25 PM
> 
> 
> On 31 May 2014, at 15:41, Andrew Cathrow wrote:
> 
> > On 05/30/2014 01:07 PM, Einav Cohen wrote:
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek at redhat.com>
> >>> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:17:27 AM
> >>> 
> >>> Hey all,
> >>> 
> >>> in the instance type feature [1] there are two parts, the "instance
> >>> types"
> >>> (HW part of the machine) and the "something not sure how to call" (which
> >>> is
> >>> basically a disk image with some SW related metadata like OS type). It is
> >>> inspired by the Amazon's "Instance Type" + "AMI".
> >>> 
> >>> Currently, the handling of the HW part is merged upstream (some small
> >>> parts
> >>> missing but mostly there) but the software part is not. I'd like to start
> >>> implementing it and wanted to ask the community how to call it. Normally
> >>> it
> >>> would be called "image", but since we already have images in oVirt it
> >>> would
> >>> be confusing.
> >>> 
> >>> I see this options how to call it, please feel free to comment on them,
> >>> vote
> >>> for some or propose a new name (please keep in mind that the HW part is
> >>> called "Instance Type").
> >>> 
> >>> - Instance Image
> >>> - Software Profile
> >>> - OMI (oVirt Machine Image)
> >> 
> >> IMO, any of the three above will do.
> >> 
> >>> - System Image
> >> 
> >> this is too confusing - we already have 'System' in the application (e.g.
> >> the
> >> 'System' tree, 'System' permissions, etc.) and we already have 'Image' in
> >> the
> >> application (in multiple places, actually, which is confusing already).
> >> Introducing a new 'System Image' type that has nothing to do with the
> >> existing
> >> 'System' or with the existing 'Image' is very confusing.
> >> 
> >>> - ITI (Instance Type Image)
> >> 
> >> this is confusing as well since it might be considered part / sub-type of
> >> the
> >> Instance Types business entity, which is wrong.
> > 
> > And why not image?
> 
> +1
> I don't think it's too much exposed currently, so I would be also for using a
> plain "image" for the "new" Instance-type related Image.
> The "Image" subcategory in Disks tab can be easily renamed to e.g. disk
> images

we also have the "Images" sub-tab in the Storage main tab (for ISO domains) 
which needs to be renamed as well IMO in order to avoid confusion. 
and if we will have "disk image" (for current Virtual Disks images) and 
"[whatever] image" (for current ISO images), I think that it makes sense 
to not introduce new plain "image", but another "[whatever] image", e.g. 
"Instance Image" or OMI, or something completely different such as "Software 
Profile". 

> What would also maybe make sense is to get rid of top level Disks tab, "hide"
> it as Quota, and create a new "Images" main tab. Or move current "Images"
> and "Direct LUNs" as a sub-category of Images toplevel tab (but since they
> are different entities I'd rather keep it completely separate)
> 
> It may be a bit more confusing for volumes because of gluster's top level tab
> 
> Thanks,
> michal
> 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> Tomas
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> [1]: http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Instance_Types
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Devel mailing list
> >>> Devel at ovirt.org
> >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >>> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Devel mailing list
> >> Devel at ovirt.org
> >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devel mailing list
> > Devel at ovirt.org
> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> 
>