Min, If we are agreed on the term "Staging Area", I would go with *StagingArea(s) instance of *CacheStore(s). Does that make sense?
Thanks, -John On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: > John, > > Currently we have 3 APIs for previous cache store, they are named as: > createCacheStore > listCacheStores > deleteCacheStore > > What are your preferred names for these 3 APIs? Let's get a consensus before > I change it to be more effective. > > Thanks > -min > > From: John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> > Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM > To: Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> > Cc: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>, dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, > Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> > Subject: Re: [ACS42] NFS Cache Naming > > Min, > > That is my recommendation with a task ticket to make the consistent post > 4.2.0. > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> So from your email below, the consensus is to fix user visible elements (UI, >> API, Configuration, Documentation) in 4.2, I will address that bug based on >> this understanding. >> >> Thanks for your clarification. >> -min >> >> From: John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> >> Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:38 AM >> To: Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> >> Cc: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>, dev >> <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> >> Subject: Re: [ACS42] NFS Cache Naming >> >> Min, >> >> In my opinion, it is a blocker because it is very misleading to operations, >> and once the name ships in documentation/UI/APIs it will essentially >> irreversible. Furthermore, as a community, we agreed to make this change in >> late May/early June. In view, community decisions for a release that are >> not carried in a release should become a blocker. >> >> I added a comment the following comment to the ticket which, I hope, will >> answer your question: >> >>> Min, >>> >>> Ideally, both. However, given the short window, the priority is for all >>> user visible elements (e.g. API, UI, configuration files, documentation, >>> etc). >>> >>> If we do not have time address code, please open a task ticket to refactor >>> the naming internally for post-4.2.0 work. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -John >> >> >> Thanks, >> -John >> >> On Jul 26, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi John, >>> >>> I saw the blocker defect filed by you regarding this Nomenclature >>> issue(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3818). Honestly >>> speaking, this does not qualify as a BLOCKER since it is not blocking any >>> functionality. One question I commented on the bug is: do you want to >>> change our UI to call out as "Staging Storage" wherever we have Cache >>> Storage showing up? Or you want us to change all our internal code class >>> and method name (like needCacheStorage, etc) to use a different >>> class/method name? We can do former quite easily, for latter, I don't >>> think that it is that urgent compared to fixing other real functional >>> blockers and criticals for 4.2 release, since that is internal >>> implementation which will be totally shielded from CloudStack user. >>> Please share your thoughts on this. >>> >>> Thanks >>> -min >>> >>> From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >>> Date: Saturday, July 20, 2013 3:18 AM >>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >>> Cc: Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com>, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> >>> Subject: Re: [ACS42] NFS Cache Naming >>> >>> NFS Staging it was in my recollection. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:30 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> It was my understanding that we had agreed to rename the "NFS Cache" >>>> mechanism to reflect that it is not a cache and remove the assumption that >>>> it will always be backed by NFS. Is my understanding correct? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -John >>> >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
