----- Original Message ----- > From: "Itamar Heim" <ih...@redhat.com> > To: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skriva...@redhat.com>, "Einav Cohen" > <eco...@redhat.com> > Cc: devel@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 <eco...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Michal Skrivanek" <michal.skriva...@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" <tjeli...@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@ovirt.org > >>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > >>>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Devel mailing list > >>>>> Devel@ovirt.org > >>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Devel mailing list > >>>> Devel@ovirt.org > >>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > >>> > >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Devel mailing list > > Devel@ovirt.org > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel