Hey Murali, If that is the case, should the Premium storage class not be in vmware-base? It is now in the plugin, so the plugin needs to be installed in the system vm for vmware support to work anyway?
Cheers, Hugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Murali Reddy [mailto:murali.re...@citrix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:25 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: combining vmware-base and plugin/hypervisor/vmware? > > 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 > > >
