On 2008-02-09T10:55:57, Xinwei Hu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Making it web or not will not change the fact that CIB is harder to
> understand than RHCS. I vote for a web based gui also, but won't
> expect it to be more friendly then haclient.
The key trick is to only show the complexity the user has asked for, and
which is actually being used within the cluster.
As the user wants more rope to hang himself with, the GUI unfolds.
While a very basic configuration is simply rendered as a linear
dependency tree, more complex configurations would allow the user to
take a look at 2 dimensions (order and placement) for the dependencies,
and when time-based rules start being used, we start using 3D effects.
Or something. ;-)
The current GUI is already a lot better than it used to be, but it
basically only implements the most simple view; it no longer destroys
what it doesn't understand (I hope), but it also doesn't unfold.
It also uses too much of the same model for showing the configuration
and the current cluster status. The rendering of the status isn't all
that bad, actually - resources shown by the nodes they run on -, but the
configuration model simply falls short of what the system can do.
Alas, I think most developers suck at writing good GUIs. Users suck at
describing what a good GUI looks like, yet are instantly able to
identify when the GUI sucks. We need a designer who can tell us how the
GUI should work - coding it is probably the smaller worry ...
Regards,
Lars
--
Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
Linux-HA@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
