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

[Einav Cohen]

[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.

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