cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Murali Reddy <>
Subject Re: combining vmware-base and plugin/hypervisor/vmware?
Date Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:25:25 GMT
On 11/09/12 1:18 PM, "Hugo Trippaers" <>

>Hey Chip,
>Good point, but by looking at the code it seems the other way around.
>Most of the generic stuff is inside the plugin (including parts of the
>code for the cisco nexus integration and the vmware version of the SSVM)
>and in particular the hypervisor code is in the vmware-base.
>For now I think it is more clear if we combine everything in the vmware
>plugin directory, should there be a need we can always separate the
>interface. For now I think it's unlikely that something is done via the
>vmware api that is not directly related to the vmware hypervisor (or used
>by peeps that don't use the vmware hypervisor).

When I initially moved vmware into a plug-in, I left vmware-base as
independently buildable jar, so that it can packaged to systemvm.iso and
management server separately. SSVM (which gets vmware version of secondary
storage resource from systemvm.iso) just need vmware-base, not complete
vmware plug-in.

How about moving vmware-base stuff into plugin/hypervisor/vmware folder
but still retain project & jar for it? So if need arises its easy to move
it out.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers []
>> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 3:39 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: combining vmware-base and plugin/hypervisor/vmware?
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Hugo Trippaers
>> <> wrote:
>> > Heya,
>> >
>> > Anybody against moving all sources from vmware-base to
>> plugin/hypervisors/vmware? It seems more logical to combine these two
>> trees and make it a single plugin.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Hugo
>> Hey Hugo,
>> There might be a reason to keep it broken out.  For example, let's say
>>that I
>> wanted to build a different plugin type that uses the VMware API.
>> -chip

View raw message