Hi All, I've recently started working as a GSoC Contributor (Adding unmanaged instances for kvm hypervisor) and as a new cloudstack user I got really confused between the term instances and virtual Machine used interchangeably in UI/APIs, and it took me sometime to figure out both are the same thing.
So +1 to Giles' proposal. Coming from the AWS ecosystem I think instances make more sense but I do understand from Daan's perspective why it is not a good choice. Best Regards, Ayush Pandey On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 12:34 PM Nicolas Vazquez < nicolas.vazq...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > +1 thanks Giles. > > For the API we could also update the API docs descriptions for methods, > parameters, and response fields (even though we can end up with: parameter: > virtualmachineid and description: ‘Instance ID’ for example) > > Regards, > Nicolas Vazquez > > > From: Marco Sinhoreli <marco.sinhor...@shapeblue.com> > Date: Friday, 9 June 2023 at 12:58 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [proposal] Consistency of naming in Cloudstack > +1 to use “Instance” in the UI and docs. Everyone knows what " Instance " > is, in my view, just a label to refer to an object in ACS. As Rohit said, > it is under Compute, then it refers to a Compute Instance. > > From: Giles Sirett <giles.sir...@shapeblue.com> > Date: Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 16:46 > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Subject: [proposal] Consistency of naming in Cloudstack > 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 > > > > > >
