On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Andrew Gaul <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 07:59:48PM +0100, Andrew Phillips wrote: >> With #239 [1], we'll hopefully be able to get an interesting and useful >> benchmarking tool from Maginatics out to the wider jclouds audience. Some >> debate going on in the issue, though, about where the right place for this >> and related administrative tools and utilities should be. >> >> I personally would like to keep these out of jclouds itself, since I see >> things in there more as libraries than standalone tools or distributions (we >> haven't used the "distribution" profile [2] for ages now, and I think it >> should probably be removed). >> >> Curious to hear what others think..? > > To gives some scope, Maginatics hopes to release a series of tools under > the jclouds umbrella: > > BlobStoreBench will be the first tool, which gathers bandwidth and > latency statistics. This allows exploring different naming schemes for > blobs, e.g., AWS-S3 prefers naming blobs with a random prefix, Atmos > prefers a limited number of blobs per directory, and Swift prefers > distributing blobs between containers. > > BlobStoreValidator diagnoses blobstore compatibility, usually used with > S3- or Swift-compatible private blobstores which have varying > authentication, service paths, and quirks like MD5 support. > > BlobStoreCli replaces some uses of the existing karaf-based jclouds-cli > using really-executable-jar. This offers a more intuitive user > experience and slimmer binary size. > > Returning to your question, I prefer to put these in the main repository > since they impose little testing and packaging overhead. Further the > explosion of repositories makes developing and releasing jclouds painful > as we encounter regressions and inconsistencies when making changes to a > single repository. We should endeavor to bring more code into the main > repository, e.g., jclouds-chef. Finally hosting these in the main > repository makes these tools more discoverable by our users. >
Thoughts on whether these need to go through IP Clearance? (and if so, lets please do them all at once rather than one at a time) --David
