cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
Subject Re: vijava - some additional thoughts
Date Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:02:50 GMT
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Kelven Yang <kelven.yang@citrix.com> wrote:
> I'd like to share some background information related to choice of Vmware
> SDK.
>
> Before I started Vmware integration project, both vi java and Vmware SDK
> were black
> boxes to me, but one thing for sure is that Vmware SDK should not have any
> blockers that could mask off raw vSphere functionality. Vi java is a until
> library that wraps on top of Vmware web service interface and it may not
> cover 100% of full Vmware functionality
> at that time. To be safe and get us quickly started, I made the choice of
> using
> Vmware SDK directly.
>
> Both vi java and Vmware SDK are very thin wrapper layers on top of vSphere
> web service WSDL interface, vi java does more high-level abstractions to
> help application developers, but I'm not sure how much those abstractions
> that we can take advantage of as we already built a similar library
> (vmware-base) to serve the needs from CloudStack.
>
> To get rid of Vmware SDK license problem, we actually have another option,
> which is to  generate our java bindings directly from vSphere WSDL and
> make Vmware-base library built on top of it, since vmware-base library is
> at similar position of VI java, it is more natural to bind it to raw WSDL
> generated files instead of on yet another abstraction layer.
>
> The question is whether or not we have license issue of Vmware web service
> WSDL?
>
> Kelven
>

So this question came up (or was decided) since we've been in the
incubator. Namely:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-137

I don't personally take that as blanket permission, and it probably
means asking legal@ (there were several caveats that Sam called out)
might be a good idea. Any mentor want to weigh in on that?

--David

Mime
View raw message