Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com
 designates 66.165.176.63 as permitted sender)
From: Sudha Ponnaganti <sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
	<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 16:05:07 -0700
Subject: RE: [ASF40][DISCUSS] Split AWS API / CloudBridge into a separate
 project
Thread-Topic: [ASF40][DISCUSS] Split AWS API / CloudBridge into a separate
 project
Thread-Index: Ac2mab8Uf9E0uwNNQcql9CZ04QDUvgACGL7A
Message-ID: 
 <7914B38A4445B34AA16EB9F1352942F1012F1078E5D6@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: <50740B4B.8010707@widodh.nl>
 <CAKprHVZLMSahGkToK3YYUmvgPxC6xQSBme4UC=5NMA=hsPA9Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <97F4356AEA71904482CD192135C038F9010D96E23F96@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
 <CA+96GG6OAKiAVP=HakrS-4B-Jgrp_-L-xLNatumymHzD8R+L8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKprHVZ43_s1YhvNGrg_S7FWW+3ad6u42i7fUKDDLA+6E9rvsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+96GG4XcUfpHz=Go1yQ=pC=WsgJVooW=CPHzYatatsXWM8-FQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <507492CD.6010300@widodh.nl>
 <CA+96GG7JhFvU9vmPMawogt9x74hMdw1ju_OqV1oYYcD=q_VZGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <7914B38A4445B34AA16EB9F1352942F1012F1078E57D@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
 <50749EC9.601@widodh.nl>
In-Reply-To: <50749EC9.601@widodh.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

QA validated with the fixes given by Edison. There is one minor issue repor=
ted related to rolling back transaction. Prachi says it is not a major issu=
e. We are good to go. Edison is making new build with all fixes in  and wil=
l do one more OOTB install and check. Thanks all=20

2012-10-09 15:48:12,875 DEBUG [db.Transaction.Transaction] (catalina-exec-i=
nt-9:null) Rolling back the transaction: Time =3D 1 Name =3D  -UserCredenti=
alsDaoImpl.getByCertUniqueId:61-DatabaseCallback.intercept:34-Authenticatio=
nHandler.invoke:118-Phase.invoke:318-AxisEngine.invoke:251-AxisEngine.recei=
ve:160-HTTPTransportUtils.processHTTPPostRequest:275-AxisServlet.doPost:133=
-HttpServlet.service:637-HttpServlet.service:717-ApplicationFilterChain.int=
ernalDoFilter:290-ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter:206; called by -Transacti=
on.rollback:887-Transaction.removeUpTo:830-Transaction.close:649-UserCreden=
tialsDaoImpl.getByCertUniqueId:68-DatabaseCallback.intercept:34-Authenticat=
ionHandler.invoke:118-Phase.invoke:318-AxisEngine.invoke:251-AxisEngine.rec=
eive:160-HTTPTransportUtils.processHTTPPostRequest:275-AxisServlet.doPost:1=
33-HttpServlet.service:637


-----Original Message-----
From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]=20
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:02 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [ASF40][DISCUSS] Split AWS API / CloudBridge into a separate p=
roject


On 10/09/2012 11:20 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti wrote:
> One more fix is needed from Edison. Wait for it if you are going to check=
 it.
> Edison post fix details here once you are done
>

I just worked on this with Edison and pushed a couple of commits to the
4.0 branch.

The installation went fine on a Ubuntu 12.04 machine, but I never used the =
AWS API before, so I'm not sure how to deploy it.

Wido

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:14 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ASF40][DISCUSS] Split AWS API / CloudBridge into a=20
> separate project
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote=
:
>>
>>
>> On 10/09/2012 07:48 PM, Chip Childers wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:31 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Chip Childers=20
>>>> <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> OK,
>>>>>
>>>>> So let me try to summarize the opinions here:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a couple of folks that think it should be split back out,=20
>>>>> but more are erring on the side of keeping the functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming that we keep the code in the ACS repo for now, the second=20
>>>>> question is one of packaging.  Wido proposed a "cloudbridge"
>>>>> package for this specific code.  I think that makes sense, in that=20
>>>>> it gives us options for breaking apart from CS in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we get some opinions about the packaging specific portion of=20
>>>>> the issue now?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So we release source code - so from a release perspective I think=20
>>>> it makes next to no difference.
>>>> For the convenience binaries that are being built it might make a=20
>>>> tremendous amount of difference - up to an including functionality=20
>>>> not working I'd specifically not want to substantially change RPMs=20
>>>> at this stage.
>>>> Debs could have this broken out since it has never been there, but=20
>>>> it would all need to be tested.
>>>>
>>>> --David
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, so let's move forward with this plan:
>>>
>>> 1 - Get the DEB package built (as a separate package).
>>
>>
>> This will be hard. Since we have a central control file for the=20
>> Debian packaging it will be something like cloud-awsapi or=20
>> cloud-bridge
>>
>> In the spec file I saw that that cloud-awsapi is depending on=20
>> cloud-deps, so that starts to tie it in with the rest of the=20
>> code-base on a packaging level.
>>
>>
>>> 2 - Test the AWS API via a DEB package installation
>>>
>>> We don't touch the RPM's now, since it's already been tested and (as=20
>>> of this morning) validated as working.
>>>
>>> Does someone want to pick up the DEB packaging for Wido (since I=20
>>> assume he's sleeping right now)?
>>>
>>
>> Not a sleep yet :) I'll be offline soon though, but I can follow up=20
>> on work done over night (for me) and continue in the morning on what=20
>> Edison came up with.
>>
>> Wido
>>
>>> -chip
>>>
>>
>
> Wido,
>
> Edison has committed his DEB packaging for AWSAPI.  Can you take a quick =
peak at it and suggest any changes that may be necessary?  Keep in mind tha=
t we didn't change the packaging strategy for the RPMs...
> so perhaps it's not as broken out as you would have originally liked.
>
> QA has started testing, but it would be very helpful to get your eyes on =
this before we call it done.
>
> Thanks!
>