Daan answered that below with "NFS Staging", so refining that a bit, here's my proposal:
fooSecondaryStagingStore On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 06:15:04PM +0000, Min Chen wrote: > John, > > Currently we have 3 APIs for previous cache store, they are named as: > createCacheStore > listCacheStores > deleteCacheStore > > What are your preferred names for these 3 APIs? Let's get a consensus before > I change it to be more effective. > > Thanks > -min > > From: John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com<mailto:jburw...@basho.com>> > Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM > To: Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com<mailto:min.c...@citrix.com>> > Cc: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com<mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>>, > dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>, Edison Su > <edison...@citrix.com<mailto:edison...@citrix.com>> > Subject: Re: [ACS42] NFS Cache Naming > > Min, > > That is my recommendation with a task ticket to make the consistent post > 4.2.0. > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Min Chen > <min.c...@citrix.com<mailto:min.c...@citrix.com>> wrote: > > So from your email below, the consensus is to fix user visible elements (UI, > API, Configuration, Documentation) in 4.2, I will address that bug based on > this understanding. > > Thanks for your clarification. > -min > > From: John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com<mailto:jburw...@basho.com>> > Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:38 AM > To: Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com<mailto:min.c...@citrix.com>> > Cc: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com<mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>>, > dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>, Edison Su > <edison...@citrix.com<mailto:edison...@citrix.com>> > Subject: Re: [ACS42] NFS Cache Naming > > Min, > > In my opinion, it is a blocker because it is very misleading to operations, > and once the name ships in documentation/UI/APIs it will essentially > irreversible. Furthermore, as a community, we agreed to make this change in > late May/early June. In view, community decisions for a release that are not > carried in a release should become a blocker. > > I added a comment the following comment to the ticket which, I hope, will > answer your question: > > Min, > > Ideally, both. However, given the short window, the priority is for all user > visible elements (e.g. API, UI, configuration files, documentation, etc). > > If we do not have time address code, please open a task ticket to refactor > the naming internally for post-4.2.0 work. > > Thanks, > -John > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Min Chen > <min.c...@citrix.com<mailto:min.c...@citrix.com>> wrote: > > Hi John, > > I saw the blocker defect filed by you regarding this Nomenclature > issue(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3818). Honestly > speaking, this does not qualify as a BLOCKER since it is not blocking any > functionality. One question I commented on the bug is: do you want to change > our UI to call out as "Staging Storage" wherever we have Cache Storage > showing up? Or you want us to change all our internal code class and method > name (like needCacheStorage, etc) to use a different class/method name? We > can do former quite easily, for latter, I don't think that it is that urgent > compared to fixing other real functional blockers and criticals for 4.2 > release, since that is internal implementation which will be totally shielded > from CloudStack user. > Please share your thoughts on this. > > Thanks > -min > > From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com<mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>> > Date: Saturday, July 20, 2013 3:18 AM > To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>> > Cc: Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com<mailto:edison...@citrix.com>>, Min Chen > <min.c...@citrix.com<mailto:min.c...@citrix.com>> > Subject: Re: [ACS42] NFS Cache Naming > > NFS Staging it was in my recollection. > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:30 PM, John Burwell > <jburw...@basho.com<mailto:jburw...@basho.com>> wrote: > All, > > It was my understanding that we had agreed to rename the "NFS Cache" > mechanism to reflect that it is not a cache and remove the assumption that it > will always be backed by NFS. Is my understanding correct? > > Thanks, > -John > > >
