On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:28 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:59 AM, Konstantina Chremmou > <konstantina.chrem...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com] >>> Sent: 02 April 2014 10:46 PM >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >>> Subject: [ANNOUNCE] Better XenServer support in 4.4.... >>> >>> I've talked about this all the way back when we were in Amsterdam and now >>> it's finally done. Tina (Konstantina Chremmou) checked in a patch that >>> removes CloudStack's own copy of XenServerJava source code and >>> submitted a copy of the xen-api.jar into the maven repository. Since xen- >>> api.jar is backwards compatible with previous versions of XenServer, only >>> one copy of such jar is needed. >>> >>> For those of you not familiar with this, CloudStack keeps its own copy of >>> three files that really belongs to XenServer: >>> - xen-api.jar: CloudStack modified the source code to add a client >>> side timeout to fault isolate CloudStack from XenServer if the XenServer >>> control layer runs into trouble. >>> - vhd-util: The copy of vhd-util shipped with XenServer is old and >>> does not provide the functionality to change the parent id of the vhd file. >>> - NFSSR.py: XenServer's copy always creates a subdirectory and >>> utilize that subdirectory for its vm images. CloudStack needed one that >>> doesn't create a subdirectory. >>> >>> With the release of hot fix XS62ESP1004, XenSever has incorporated all of >>> CloudStack's changes for the three files. Unfortunately, these changes are >>> not back-ported to previous versions so CloudStack will only utilize the new >>> changes against XenSever 6.2 + SP1 + XS62ESP1004. There is a new resource, >>> XenServer625Resource.java, that was added in 4.3 to work with this exact >>> XenServer patch level. Unfortunately, the xen-api.jar couldn't make it in >>> time for the 4.3 release so we still had to keep our own copy of the source >>> code in 4.3. >> >> >> We could still change it for 4.3-forward though. I've submitted for >> consideration a patch for that branch too. >> >> > > Doesn't sound like a bug fix, so probably not appropriate for 4.3-forward. > > > As an aside, we need to make sure LICENSE gets updated.
I have a patch for this, and will push as soon as the LDAP issues are resolved. --David
