Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op 13 sep. 2012 om 14:05 heeft "Murali Reddy" <murali.re...@citrix.com> het volgende geschreven: > On 11/09/12 7:25 PM, "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? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Hugo >> > > No, I think premium storage class could be a separate Jar. Does this mean we should actually have three components? The plugin for the hypervisor VMware, the plugin for the VMware secondary storage and a library with VMware convenience code? > Ideally we > would should have a way for plugin's to tell what component/jar's should > go in to management server and system VM's. Right now there is single > plugin that is packaged into both server and system VM. I thinking we can do this with profiles in maven. When the flag VMware is enabled the systemvm build could be configured to include the VMware jars. > > Vmware-base is just convenience library which does not have CloudStack > functionality. My only concern is if that is merged into Vmware-plugin, > over the time, it get coupled with the hypervisor specific code. Good point. > > >> >>> -----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 >>>> >>> >> >> > >
