> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Yaniv Kaul" <yk...@redhat.com> > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 2:04:59 PM > > 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'
- Mockups updated. - rest-api change is probably needed [Ori/Geert/Yair - FYI] > - I'd be happy if we could validate whatever we pass to the mount > command against command injection[1] . Ayal/Saggi: Do we have such validation on vdsm? I think we can start with that, we can always add validation to the engine core/UI later. > > Y. > [1] https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Command_Injection > > > > ---- > Thanks, > Einav > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzasl...@redhat.com> To: "Einav Cohen" > <eco...@redhat.com> Cc: "Ayal Baron" <aba...@redhat.com> , > engine-devel@ovirt.org , "Simon Grinberg" <sgrin...@redhat.com> , > "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizr...@redhat.com> , "Geert Jansen" > <gjan...@redhat.com> , "Ori Liel" <ol...@redhat.com> , "Miki > Kenneth" <mkenn...@redhat.com> , "Andrew Cathrow" > <acath...@redhat.com> 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" <aba...@redhat.com> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 > 11:03:04 PM > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ayal Baron" <aba...@redhat.com> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 > 11:39:42 AM > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ayal Baron" <aba...@redhat.com> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 > 10:46:44 PM > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Einav Cohen" <eco...@redhat.com> To: "Andrew Cathrow" > <acath...@redhat.com> Cc: engine-devel@ovirt.org , "Simon Grinberg" > <sgrin...@redhat.com> , > "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizr...@redhat.com> , "Geert > Jansen" <gjan...@redhat.com> , "Ori Liel" <ol...@redhat.com> , > "Yair > Zaslavsky" <yzasl...@redhat.com> , "Ayal Baron" <aba...@redhat.com> , > "Miki Kenneth" <mkenn...@redhat.com> 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 Engine-devel@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel > _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel