Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 11, 2012, at 6:56 AM, "Hugo Trippaers" <htrippa...@schubergphilis.com> wrote: > 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? > +1 > 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 >>> >> >
