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

[Oved Ourfali]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>
> To: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek at redhat.com>, "Einav Cohen" <ecohen at redhat.com>
> Cc: devel at ovirt.org
> Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:16:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] how to call the SW part of instance type?
> 
> On 06/04/2014 02:29 PM, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 2, 2014, at 18:45 , Einav Cohen <ecohen at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> ----- 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".
> >
> > I guess we can go with "Instance Image" for now
> 
> we can easily change the gui, but not the rest api...
> I admit i kind of like the OMI suggestion, but not sure why this image
> is not just an Image or Disk Image.
> 

I'd either go for OMI, or Image. OMI - as it is nice, and Image as it reflects what it is.


> > But I have in mind some bigger reshuffle regarding storage's tabs which
> > would clarify the flows and naming, let's discuss that later…
> > Also that "Volumes" gluster tab probably doesn't make too much sense
> > longterm.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > michal
> >
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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