Hi...

   For the points about following or not following the std Maven directory
structure, I would suggest to do it after merging Javelin into master branch

Is there a separate branch for updating similar maven configurations ? or
making our poms comply to the std Maven conventions ?

If not would it be worthy to create that branch gather interested people to
work on it ?

Thoughts ?


On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:21 PM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com> wrote:

> Edison,
>
> Cool.  Sorry for the mini-freak out.  I also posted my design thoughts to
> the "new storage framework update" thread started a little bit back.
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> On Jan 8, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, there is no immediate change to s3-backed storage code on master
> branch after javelin is merged into master. As I haven't glue the new
> storage code on javelin branch with storage related api calls yet, so all
> the existing storage code on master will/should work as it is.
> > After the merge, we can decide when to use the new storage framework
> code. I think all we agree on that the storage code needs to be refactored,
> and if then we agree on how to do it, that will be the time we can switch
> to new storage code.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:44 AM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge Javelin branch into master
> >>
> >> Edison,
> >>
> >> So the current changes for S3-backed Secondary Storage will not be
> impacted
> >> by the Javelin's new storage architecture?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -John
> >>
> >> On Jan 8, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburwell@basho.com]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:13 AM
> >>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge Javelin branch into master
> >>>>
> >>>> All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Will this merge be pre or post 4.1.0?  I am concerned regarding the
> >>>> S3-backed
> >>>
> >>> Plan before 4.1.0.
> >>>
> >>>> Secondary Storage feature.  Looking at this branch, the work done to
> >>>> support
> >>>> S3 does not appear to compatible with the new storage architecture,
> >>>> and I don't think there is enough time before 31 Jan 2013 to
> >>>> retrofit.  I also have
> >>>
> >>> The existing storage code on master will not be changed, as the most
> of our
> >> changes on javelin branch are in the fresh new maven projects.
> >>>
> >>>> design concerns which I raise on a separate thread.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to know your comments on the design.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> -John
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 8, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Alex Huang <Alex.Huang@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The problem that Howie is talking about is that none of our
> >>>>>> projects are structured in the "standard" maven layout.  This isn't
> >>>>>> just a test source issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I'm saying maven have a way to accommodate for that by specifying
> >>>>> exactly
> >>>> where the directory should be in the pom.xml.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Like I said though, I don't know why it doesn't follow standard
> layout.
> >>>> Maybe it was just easier to do the maven conversion this way?  I
> >>>> think all the directories in javelin has follow the current layout in
> >>>> 4.0 as well.  We can make all of the javelin directories follow the
> >>>> standard if there was no clear call on how to layout the structures
> >> originally.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --Alex
> >>>
> >
>
>


-- 
Thanks
- Mohammad Nour
----
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"
- Albert Einstein