Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
From: Hugo Trippaers <HTrippaers@schubergphilis.com>
To: "<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>"
	<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Official ASF process for re-writing code?
Thread-Topic: Official ASF process for re-writing code?
Thread-Index: 
 AQHNb155Fn2yKx7570uARxwZylNKY5dD/f6AgAAC/ACAAASSAIAAAyCAgAPF+QCAAIS3GP//5PkAgAAjTF6AAYhdgIACm+zg
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 08:50:01 +0000
Message-ID: <6DE00C9FDF08A34683DF71786C70EBF029915F28@SBPOMB402.sbp.lan>
References: 
 <CA+96GG55+eSW2NPa00g6L53aL_ZnHQOC4iEwKrxpupxMGNyxVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <46A4543D-7C43-4209-9992-C039941B8439@apache.org>
 <CAARMrHXU7RmyS=8UEZeLr7wD9tSO8OgdF9zmdYG6tBDqGFoXpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <104533351BBC7748811EBD1AB15A140F013826163A96@exch1-x64>
 <CA+96GG6kmPh08bfLXymGfKEqePXgR85GG7+3Kk-0U-yxvgQ+eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <104533351BBC7748811EBD1AB15A140F013826163AEF@exch1-x64>
 <268D296E-0C3A-45A9-AFD7-083608FEA730@schubergphilis.com>
 <CA+96GG7nm6qkJ9rqziYWnjXLeUVa-uF=ELzTouFVgdpN2=wXhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <692FEC48-11CC-4C2B-A9F8-0C6341FA2205@schubergphilis.com>
 <2074988750005686456@unknownmsgid>
In-Reply-To: <2074988750005686456@unknownmsgid>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Heya ,

I've been looking into this. The XTrustProvider class is also part of the c=
loud-iControl.jar. Where do we get the jar from?=20

So far I've not yet been able to get the library to throw certificate valid=
ation errors even when disabling the line in configure with the XTrustProvi=
der. Digging into this, it's because the Interfaces class in the iControl j=
ar also calls  XTrustProvider.install().

In any case we can remove the XTtrustProvider from "our" sources and remove=
 the line from configure in F5BigIpResource.

Would that satisfy the license stuff?

Cheers,

Hugo


-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]=20
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:51 PM
To: <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Official ASF process for re-writing code?

Very cool. Thanks Hugo!

- chip

Sent from my iPhone.

On Aug 3, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Hugo Trippaers <HTrippaers@schubergphilis.com> =
wrote:

> Hey Chip,
>
> Sure, happy to help out. I can probably get something done this weekend. =
Having this as a generic class could be a benefit for future integrations a=
s well.
>
> I'll dive in to the code and keep track of this thread to see if I can he=
lp out.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hugo
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 3 aug. 2012, at 19:21, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com> wro=
te:
>
>> Hugo,
>>
>> Just looked at your implementation.  It does appear to do the same=20
>> thing, which is fantastic.  Would you happen to have any availability=20
>> to attempt to replace the F5 code with something similar to your=20
>> implementation?  Perhaps it should be a utility class that can be=20
>> shared between the two features?
>>
>> Kishan has CS-15732 currently assigned to him (the bug for tracking=20
>> this), but I haven't heard anything about progress.
>>
>> Kishan - if you've actually started already, can you please let the list=
 know?
>>
>> -chip
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Hugo Trippaers=20
>> <HTrippaers@schubergphilis.com> wrote:
>>> Heya,
>>>
>>> Just pitching in without context, but I have some code in the Nicira st=
uff that does that, provided the code uses httpclient in the back.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Hugo
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 3 aug. 2012, at 13:02, "Arve Paalsrud" <Arve.Paalsrud@bayonette.no> =
wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have not been able to get a response from Jacob Gilley through a few=
 channels, so we should move forward replacing the XTrustProvider class. It=
's not too big of a deal and shouldn't take long, but there are really not =
that many ways to do it. The task is pretty much to accept any SSL certific=
ates, regardless if they are self-signed or from a root cert. I can't see t=
hat it will require any special refactoring of the callers either.
>>>>
>>>> For further information of the source:=20
>>>> https://devcentral.f5.com/Community/GroupDetails/tabid/1082223/asg/
>>>> 51/aft/2279/showtab/groupforums/Default.aspx
>>>>
>>>> -Arve
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Chip Childers
>>>> Sent: 1. august 2012 03:25
>>>> Subject: Re: Official ASF process for re-writing code?
>>>>
>>>> Fantastic Arve!  Thanks for pitching in.
>>>>
>>>> -chip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Arve Paalsrud <Arve.Paalsrud@bayonett=
e.no> wrote:
>>>>> This code snippet is written by Jacob Gilley in a forum thread over a=
t F5 Dev Central in 2005, and not F5 Network themselves. F5's version and t=
he original code are identical - they've only added the copyright statement=
s and optional GPL, so I've reached out to Jacob and asked if he's willing =
to release it under Apache.
>>>>>
>>>>> Waiting for his reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Arve
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Adrian Cole [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: 1. august 2012 02:57
>>>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: Official ASF process for re-writing code?
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 (non-binding and certainly not official) for taking the=20
>>>>> +opportunity to
>>>>> rewrite code as a chance to make things better, vs least efforts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Code written more than several months prior can often be written bett=
er anyway (one hopes their skills age well :P).  Particularly, unit tests a=
re a welcome great improvement whenever there's code to be "rewritten".  I'=
d go so far as to say code without unit tests are often time bombs that sho=
uld be rewritten anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> -A
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org> wrot=
e:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/08/2012, at 6:52 AM, Chip Childers=20
>>>>>> <chip.childers@sungard.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone know the official ASF stance on what it means to=20
>>>>>>> "re-write" a section of code?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no general answer to this - each case needs to be=20
>>>>>> considered separately. This was the closest I could find in the arch=
ives:
>>>>>> http://s.apache.org/rewriting-code
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specifically, I was looking at the F5 code [1] that was found=20
>>>>>>> during license header changes (and is considered a release blocker =
bug [2]).
>>>>>>> The code is actually quite trivial in nature, and I'm wondering=20
>>>>>>> what it would take to correctly write a replacement class file. =20
>>>>>>> My assumption is that simply re-naming variables wouldn't work=20
>>>>>>> (and even if that was enough, there are only a handful of them in t=
he file).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree, renaming variables is definitely not right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case it is trivial (I googled and found a half-dozen=20
>>>>>> examples doing the same thing), so I'd say remove it and have=20
>>>>>> someone reimplement it. It may be better in these cases if they=20
>>>>>> haven't seen the original code, but not strictly necessary. It is=20
>>>>>> probably a good opportunity to refactor calling code too, if needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other cases, an option available is to ask the copyright=20
>>>>>> holder if they'd consider contributing/granting a license to a=20
>>>>>> piece of code to include here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ultimately, we want to make sure we do the right thing by the=20
>>>>>> authors and that code here is intentionally contributed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HTH,
>>>>>> Brett
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Brett Porter
>>>>>> brett@apache.org
>>>>>> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/=20
>>>>>> http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/brettporter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>