[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" <[email protected]> > To: "Einav Cohen" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Ayal Baron" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Simon > Grinberg" <[email protected]>, "Saggi Mizrahi" > <[email protected]>, "Geert Jansen" <[email protected]>, "Ori Liel" > <[email protected]>, "Miki Kenneth" > <[email protected]>, "Andrew Cathrow" <[email protected]> > 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" <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:03:04 PM > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "Ayal Baron" <[email protected]> > >>>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:39:42 AM > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>> From: "Ayal Baron" <[email protected]> > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:46:44 PM > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>>>> From: "Einav Cohen" <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> To: "Andrew Cathrow" <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> Cc: [email protected], "Simon Grinberg" > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>, > >>>>>>>> "Saggi Mizrahi" <[email protected]>, "Geert > >>>>>>>> Jansen" <[email protected]>, "Ori Liel" > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>, > >>>>>>>> "Yair > >>>>>>>> Zaslavsky" <[email protected]>, "Ayal Baron" > >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>, "Miki Kenneth" <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> 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". > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
