Edison, So the current changes for S3-backed Secondary Storage will not be impacted by the Javelin's new storage architecture?
Thanks, -John On Jan 8, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:13 AM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge Javelin branch into master >> >> All, >> >> Will this merge be pre or post 4.1.0? I am concerned regarding the S3-backed > > Plan before 4.1.0. > >> Secondary Storage feature. Looking at this branch, the work done to support >> S3 does not appear to compatible with the new storage architecture, and I >> don't think there is enough time before 31 Jan 2013 to retrofit. I also have > > The existing storage code on master will not be changed, as the most of our > changes on javelin branch are in the fresh new maven projects. > >> design concerns which I raise on a separate thread. > > > I'd like to know your comments on the design. > >> >> Thanks, >> -John >> >> On Jan 8, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>>> The problem that Howie is talking about is that none of our projects >>>> are structured in the "standard" maven layout. This isn't just a >>>> test source issue. >>>> >>> I'm saying maven have a way to accommodate for that by specifying exactly >> where the directory should be in the pom.xml. >>> >>> Like I said though, I don't know why it doesn't follow standard layout. >> Maybe it was just easier to do the maven conversion this way? I think all >> the >> directories in javelin has follow the current layout in 4.0 as well. We can >> make all of the javelin directories follow the standard if there was no clear >> call on how to layout the structures originally. >>> >>> --Alex >
