> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrew Cathrow" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:57:44 PM > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Einav Cohen" <[email protected]> > > To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <[email protected]>, "Yair Zaslavsky" > > <[email protected]> > > Cc: "Haim Ateya" <[email protected]>, "Eldan Hildesheim" > > <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Eldan > > Hildesheim" <[email protected]>, "Simon Grinberg" > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:51:32 AM > > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Saggi Mizrahi" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:39:49 PM > > > > > > I do express that empty mount options SHOULD NOT send an empty > > > string, rather, omit the whole argument. > > > > Yes, this should be handled on the backend side (Yair - please > > note, > > maybe it is already implemented like this - don't know): When > > getting a null-or-empty "mount options" value from the client, the > > backend needs to make sure to *not* set the relevant parameter in > > the vdsm verb at all. > > > > So leaving the "mount options" text-box empty in the GUI is legal, > > only needs to be handled in a certain way in the backend. > > > > In theory for a PosixFS file system a user could create multiple > storage domains of different PosixFS types. Perhaps that's not a > problem, but worth noting. > > Is "Path" the correct term to use for the remote mount? I can imagine > customers thinking that is local and messing with fstab. > Not sure if there's a better term - filesystem URI ?
- In the initial mock-up, it was called "Mount Spec". Is it better? - Note that the current PosixFS implementation in the rest-api utilizes the already-existing "<path>" property within the "<storage>" tag within the "<storage_domain>" rest-api business entity, therefore I put in the mockup the same term. Do you think that the rest-api should have a different term as well? > > I presume we are doing just not-null validation for path. > > Obviously we can't validate the mount options but how good is the > error reporting back going to be - if the mount options are wrong, > or if something fails with the mount will we see "error 12345" in > the UI and require the user to go digging in vdsm logs or are we > going to pull back and display toe complete message. Depends on backend/vdsm; Yair/Ayal? > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Einav Cohen" <[email protected]> > > > > To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <[email protected]>, "Ayal Baron" > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: "Saggi Mizrahi" <[email protected]>, "Andrew Cathrow" > > > > <[email protected]>, "Miki Kenneth" > > > > <[email protected]>, "Simon Grinberg" <[email protected]>, > > > > "Eldan Hildesheim" <[email protected]>, "Eldan > > > > Hildesheim" <[email protected]>, "Alexey Chub" > > > > <[email protected]>, > > > > [email protected], "Haim Ateya" > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:28:31 AM > > > > Subject: Re: PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <[email protected]> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 4:21:42 PM > > > > > > > > > > On 05/10/2012 04:16 PM, Einav Cohen wrote: > > > > > > Please review the mock-ups on the feature page: > > > > > > http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Features/PosixFSConnection#Changes_in_GUI > > > > > > > > > > > > Comments are welcome. > > > > > > > > > > From talking to Haim I understood that path should include > > > > > ":" > > > > > > > > From talking to Ayal, the path can be similar in its format to > > > > a > > > > path > > > > provided when creating an NFS storage domain (e.g. > > > > "server:/dir1/dir2"), *or* to a path provided when creating a > > > > Local > > > > storage domain (e.g. "/tmp/dir3"), meaning, without ":". > > > > @Ayal - any chance for a clarification here? > > > > > > > > > In addition - if we only support V1, why add the combo box? > > > > > > > > We are always showing the combo-box, even if we have only one > > > > option > > > > in it (so the user will know what is the value that is being > > > > sent). > > > > However, we disable it. I updated the mock-up to clarify this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Einav > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Engine-devel mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Engine-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > > > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
