Hi Daan - thanks for your input. Some comments inline below
Kind Regards Giles -----Original Message----- From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:17 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [proposal] Consistency of naming in Cloudstack Giles, the principle of what you are saying seems good but I have a few remarks; 1. Consistency should not become a goal. Clarity is and if context might give rise to a different understanding of the same work consistency is detrimental to understanding >> I *think* I understand your point, but I see high correlation between >> consistency of naming and clarity. Surely, using different names (or >> metaphors!) for the same object type inherently reduces clarity?. Could you >> give an example of where using different names for one cloudstack object >> type could increase clarity ? 2. Metaphor is an important aspect in system development [1] first introduced into software development in xtreme programming [2] I think instance is a bad metaphor to use for Virtual Machine Instances in a system that is full of all kinds of items (first class citizens) that can also be seen as instances. I would go for "VM instance", "VM-instance" or just machines. I am not saying either of these are ideal but they are all better than instance. >>To be clear here: this would involve renaming every UI element to >>standardise. Would you propose renaming the current main menu & lifecycle >>commands to one of these names ? and finally 3. The industry standard is not a good reason to go for a term. we can improve on the industry standard and so we should. >> We'll have to agree to disagree on that €0.02 [1] https://medium.com/swlh/the-importance-of-metaphors-in-programming-philosophy-and-trading-a0030ed176b6 [2] http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/metaphor.html On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:47 PM Giles Sirett <giles.sir...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > > Background > Recently, I have been looking at a number of issues relating to the > "first use" / "first impression" use of cloudstack. What to people > think of Cloudstack as a new user? What is peoples perception of > Cloudstack as a new user ? How easy is it for people to understand > cloudstack & its concepts and to get help > > > One thing I have seen is that CloudStack is inconsistent with what we call > VM's/Instances: > > > * In the UI main menu, we say Instances. We then have a very large > "Create instance" button. All lifecycle operations are then "Foo Instance" > * In various other places in the UI (many text messages, error messages, > column headers, for example) we say "VM" > * The API uses Instance, VM and Virtual Machine > * The documentation, again, uses all 3 terms > > Now - I know everybody on this list (myself included for the last 10 > years) has always used these terms interchangeably - we all KNOW that > these are the same things. However, I think it could cause confusion > to people seeing Cloudstack for the first time and create negative > impressions. Also, there is no consistency when searching > documentation - one page uses one term, one the other (and some even > use both on the same page) . I don't know of many other pieces of > software that use 2/3 different names for their primary functional > object > > > My proposal is to move towards having consistency of this naming and would > look something like this: > > > 1. Choose the name to use going forwards (more on that later) > 2. Undertake a remedial exercise: > * Update UI elements to [new name] > * Update documentation to [New Name] > * Leave Global Settings names alone, but change their description to > reflect [New Name] > * Leave the API alone - theres no way of getting consistency there > without breaking compatibility > 3. Encourage contributors to use [new name] in all work going > forwards > > > The remedial exercise (hopefully) could be a find/replace (with some > manual checking) - I'd be happy to take that on with some help from work > colleagues As/when/if we do do Cloudstack 5.0, then look at the API, but IMO > this is lower priority as people that's not usdually "first impression" > > > So - first proposal point: any objections to me undertaking this work ? > > > Second point: what to call these things ? > It is my view that we should call them Instances. These are my reasons: > > * Nearly all Cloud computing platforms refer to them as instances (i.e. > industry standard) . Yes, it is a VM "behind the scenes", but Instance is an > accepted term that is slightly abstracted from VM > * Our primary UI already uses Instance ns most prominent places, renaming > top level nav and functionality is a step backwards IMO > * Today, Cloudstack provides these through VMs , but that could change in > the future (please don't read anything into that comment) - instance doesn't > tie us to VMs (which is probably why most cloud providers use it) > > So, my proposal is to bring consistency and use the term Instance > > From brief discussions, I know other people favour other terms and may have > objections to the term Instance (despite it having been in use in ACS for > many years) - but happy to take all inputs if people feel this is just wrong. > > > > > > Kind Regards > Giles > > > > -- Daan
