[Engine-devel] static header only in VM dialog?

[Tomas Jelinek]

So, are there any additional concerns/questions which need to be discussed? I understand that we have one more 
month but I would like to avoid the situation from a week ago that the last possible day we realize that we don't
have any more time anymore :)

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Malini Rao" <mrao at redhat.com>
> To: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen at redhat.com>
> Cc: "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek at redhat.com>, "Daniel Erez" <derez at redhat.com>, "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>,
> "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skrivanek at redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <info at eldanet.com>, "engine-devel"
> <engine-devel at ovirt.org>, "Eldan Hildesheim" <ehildesh at redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 3:58:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] static header only in VM dialog?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen at redhat.com>
> > To: "Tomas Jelinek" <tjelinek at redhat.com>, "Daniel Erez" <derez at redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>, "Michal Skrivanek"
> > <michal.skrivanek at redhat.com>, "Eldan Hildesheim"
> > <info at eldanet.com>, "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>, "Eldan
> > Hildesheim" <ehildesh at redhat.com>, "Malini Rao"
> > <mrao at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 8:26:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] static header only in VM dialog?
> > 
> > > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > @Tomas - I suggest that you will clarify:
> > > > 
> > > > A) which fields exactly are going to be included in the top static
> > > > header
> > > > of
> > > > the New VM
> > > > dialog *in your current patch batch* [2], and:
> > > 
> > > - Data Center
> > > - Cluster
> > > - Quota
> > > - Template (because according to the mockup the Image field will contain
> > > both
> > > Template and Image, so until we have images, just templates are there)
> > > - Vm Type (e.g. if server or desktop)
> > > - OS type
> > > (well, basically according to mockup, just without the instance type)
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > B) which side-tabs in the New VM dialog will be affected by the fields
> > > > in
> > > > (A).
> > > 
> > > More or less all with some exceptions - especially thanx to the template
> > > field. And this will not change at all after introducing instance
> > > types/templates because template = instance type + image.
> > 
> > So it seems that it would make sense to introduce the top static header
> > even
> > before introducing the Instance Types + Image fields, as it already
> > contains
> > fields (namely 'Template') that affect most of the side-tabs.
> > Thanks, Tomas, for the clarification.
> > 
> > > So the question is not really if we want to
> > > wait until the instance types and images will affect enough side tabs
> > > (because that
> > > will not change at all) but if we want to have a top header panel or not.
> > > I
> > > personally start to think that it is more or less a question of taste.
> > > One may argue that it makes the dialogs more understandable (by having
> > > context all the time) and other that it makes them more un-understandable
> > > by
> > > flood of information in context you don't need.
> > > I guess either way has some advantages and disadvantages and there is no
> > > strict good/wrong solution.
> > 
> > +1
> 
> One way to limit this flooding of information in unnecessary contexts is to
> not apply a blind rule that the static panel will appear for all dialogs
> with sub tabs. 
+1

> As outlined in a previous email, the static panel should be
> used only if there is a  dependency and it is impossible to show the
> interdependent fields on the same page. The other important thing we should
> do is very carefully consider what fields populate the static panel. The
> idea is that this panel is minimal and should definitely not becoming like a
> page in itself.
> 
> -Malini
> 
> 
> > 
> > > ...
> > 
>