On 05/13/2012 11:54 AM, Einav Cohen wrote:
[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.
- POSIX, not Posix.
- 'POSIX compliant FS', not 'PosixFS'
- I'd be happy if we could validate whatever we pass to the mount
command against command injection[1] .
Y.
[1] https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Command_Injection
----
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
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
