+1 for instances
As other public cloud (AWS, Azure, GCP) also use the term Instances or vm
instances
Regards
Kiran
From: Ayush Pandey
Date: Monday, 12 June 2023 at 8:41 AM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: [proposal] Consistency of naming in Cloudstack
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
> Date: Friday, 9 June 2023 at 12:58
> To: 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
> Date: Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 16:46
> To: 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 t