Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: tomoe@midokura.jp
In-Reply-To: <CC48222F.1873B%murali.reddy@citrix.com>
References: <20120808074641.5557.28989@reviews.apache.org>
	<CC48222F.1873B%murali.reddy@citrix.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:27:48 +0900
Message-ID: 
 <CA+T3pARmPXMrYEZgVcfBq6M7BOkw1cpadqOxRQw=9-mqBrnSHA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Review Request: Add Provider and NetworkDevice for Midokura
 MidoNet
From: Tomoe Sugihara <tomoe@midokura.com>
To: Murali Reddy <Murali.Reddy@citrix.com>
Cc: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
 <cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Murali Reddy <Murali.Reddy@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 08/08/12 1:16 PM, "Tomoe Sugihara" <tomoe@midokura.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>>https://reviews.apache.org/r/6464/
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Review request for cloudstack.
>>
>>
>>Description
>>-------
>>
>>We are working on integrating our SDN technology with CloudStack and
>>found that we need to register these inside the code.
>>We haven't finished implementation, but it'd be great if this'd be
>>accepted in advance in time for 4.0 so we can do integration work against
>>4.0 later. We'd be happy to provide our integration code once it's done.
>
> Fix looks good. But just wondering why would you want just introduce a new
> provider which is not functional? If I may suggest, at least get in the
> skeleton of the implementation of files that is required. I would be happy
> to help with that or you can refer to the Nicira NVP integration to get an
> idea of what needs to be changed.
>
>>
>>Let me know if there's any processes or criteria to follow when it comes
>>to pushing this kind of vendor specific code.
>
> I guess there is no process/criteria to follow to push vendor specific
> code. Just extend the integration points (NetworkElement, Network Guru,
> Provider etc) you will have to in order to support Midokura SDN and keep
> the implementation contained as PluggableService so that there is choice
> to turn on/off the Midokura SDN controller support.

Hi Murali,

I just updated the diff with skeletons.

Thanks,
Tomoe