Works for me -- +1. On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote:
> I like this better, they will be replaced as below if there is no > objection. > > createSecondaryStagingStore > listSecondaryStagingStores > deleteSecondaryStagingStore > > Jessica, please fix the UI invocation with these new api names. API > parameters are not changed, just name is changed. > > Thanks > -min > > On 7/26/13 11:19 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
