On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 02:18:43PM -0400, John Burwell wrote: > Min, > > If we are agreed on the term "Staging Area", I would go with *StagingArea(s) > instance of *CacheStore(s). Does that make sense?
If the only purpose of this is for secondary storage, shouldn't it be SecondaryStaging? > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:15 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> 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> > > Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM > > To: Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> > > Cc: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>, dev > > <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Edison Su <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> 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> > >> Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:38 AM > >> To: Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> > >> Cc: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>, dev > >> <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Edison Su <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> 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> > >>> Date: Saturday, July 20, 2013 3:18 AM > >>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>> Cc: Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com>, Min Chen <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> 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 > >>> > >> > > >
