Hey Chip, Good point, but by looking at the code it seems the other way around. Most of the generic stuff is inside the plugin (including parts of the code for the cisco nexus integration and the vmware version of the SSVM) and in particular the hypervisor code is in the vmware-base.
For now I think it is more clear if we combine everything in the vmware plugin directory, should there be a need we can always separate the interface. For now I think it's unlikely that something is done via the vmware api that is not directly related to the vmware hypervisor (or used by peeps that don't use the vmware hypervisor). Cheers, Hugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 3:39 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: combining vmware-base and plugin/hypervisor/vmware? > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Hugo Trippaers > <htrippa...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: > > Heya, > > > > Anybody against moving all sources from vmware-base to > plugin/hypervisors/vmware? It seems more logical to combine these two > trees and make it a single plugin. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Hugo > > Hey Hugo, > > There might be a reason to keep it broken out. For example, let's say that I > wanted to build a different plugin type that uses the VMware API. > > -chip
