Hi Moritz,
Ø
The user doesn't care!
How do you know? Did you talk to her? Would
be great by the way! Nevertheless, I hope we will end up with user*s* rather than only one user ;-)
Ø
And now we have
geclipse.. making a simple technology complicated...
No, we try to make the
best out of it, this is the reason why we are discussing, right?!
Ø
Negative Tooling!
This is not about us. It is about them (the users).
Why do you assume the users
are too stupid to realise that “Computing” is equivalent to the running
instances … just an example.
Ø
Placing it under
connections, alongside mounted S3 buckets, feels kind of misplaced for me.
Agreed, not one of my best ideas :)
Ø
These things
(administrative entities) are more like remote resources for me. They
are kept remote and managed remotely. This is why i would prefer to have
them under the AWS VO. But what i could image is that you are able to mount a
security group from the AWS VO into the "local resources area" but in
a different folder than connections.
Thereby you have your favorite security groups nearby. I completely agree with the
doubleclick-open-dialog scenario. That would be the best solution to edit a
security group.
Actually what you propose
is nearly the same I had in mind. I just was thinking about how these groups can be edited. I do not like the idea of having them
managed in a dedicated view. I
rather thought about an editor like
we also have the batch system editor or so (which also edits remote resources).
I’m furthermore fine with having them (the local one’s) in a
separate project folder rather than
in connections. Of course you are right, these are not connections.
One more thought on this.
I really like the current AWS implementation. Nevertheless we have a whole
workbench and are only using small
parts when dealing with AWS, i.e. mainly the project view. The main area, the
editor area, is not used at all. So the whole user perspective is somehow not
suitable for the current AWS implementation, right?! Now of course we could
introduce a new perspective (do not even think about it :-P) but I would rather
have a look at what is already there and
make use of it.
> I do understand how the
mechanism works.... and that is why it feels awkward to me ;)
So where is the counter
proposal?!
Ø
AWS is not the
grid. I think the user would be more happy with descriptive folder names
than to have similarities with other
middlewares.
Why do you think „Instance“ is more descriptive than “Computing”? Only because Amazon uses
this term? Have a look at the dictionary, instance
means everything and nothing. It is just a name, so is “Computing”.
So what is the difference between “Favorites” and “Bookmarks”? Just the name, right!? The
meaning is the same. We are
g-Eclipse, we are not Amazon, we have our own identity and
we should be careful to not loose too much of this identity! The same of course
applies to “Services”.
Ø
I hope you don't
get me wrong here. It is the user i am concerned about. :)
Sure, keep up these
concerns ;-)
Mathias
