On 11/09/12 1:18 PM, "Hugo Trippaers" <htrippa...@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>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 When I initially moved vmware into a plug-in, I left vmware-base as independently buildable jar, so that it can packaged to systemvm.iso and management server separately. SSVM (which gets vmware version of secondary storage resource from systemvm.iso) just need vmware-base, not complete vmware plug-in. How about moving vmware-base stuff into plugin/hypervisor/vmware folder but still retain project & jar for it? So if need arises its easy to move it out. > >> -----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 >
