incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ewan Mellor <Ewan.Mel...@eu.citrix.com>
Subject RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:57:22 GMT
The only metric that we have (to my knowledge) is that the Query API was broken for a long
time (a problem with the signature-checking code, so nothing worked at all).  So the SOAP
API is the one that's had all the love from us.  If you have test results, then that's far
better.

Ewan.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Adrian Cole
> Sent: 02 August 2012 10:29
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Prachi Damle
> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> 
> Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API?  Ex.
> Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
> 
> Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with subjective quality
> assessments.  Hopefully, you can dispell that with a test suite I can run to
> show objectively the quality of the SOAP API.
> 
> I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact in jclouds we are
> already doing this for greenqloud.  There are a couple glitches, but nothing
> that cannot be sorted.
> 
> -A
> On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Ewan,
> >
> > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around the
> > release process.  We have all agreed that getting to a "legal" release
> > is the priority, and we also agreed to target a time-bound release
> > model.  It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the one to "crack the
> > wip".  It was needed.  Perhaps we need to look at how to rotate that
> > around the community for future releases, so that everybody gets a
> > chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
> >
> > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I think
> > we need to compromise a bit here.  If Prachi can get everything
> > working without the WSDL files being in the source tree, then that
> > would be sufficient to achieve our primary objective for the release.
> > Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the query API,
> > my personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API intact.  If
> > we run into issues making it work without the WSDL's, we'll need an
> > alternative strategy to deal with the licensing / copyright issue for
> > those files.
> >
> > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that we aim
> > to convert from SOAP to Query.  That will require testing effort, but
> > I believe it's the right move long term.  Assuming the WSDL's can be
> > removed cleanly, this deprecation step would be in a future release.
> > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in the 4.0
> > release notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP to Query.
> > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with that
> > strategy.
> >
> > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
> >
> > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting to
> > remove the WSDL files).
> > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the SOAP API
> > intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
> > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the SOAP
> > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing required to
> > assess quality for the Query API.  This would allow us to make an
> > informed decision about how to handle the situation.
> >
> > -chip
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor
> > <Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > > No, it's not my decision to make alone.  This group has asked for
> > time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing.  If people decide that
> > they don't want time-based releases after all, then we can start again
> > with a new release plan.
> > >
> > > That's not what people have asked for though.  We've asked the
> > > question
> > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as soon
> > as you can.  We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months (it
> > will be five months on the current release plan) and we're already
> > seeing articles saying that you shouldn't use Apache releases because
> > they are crippled compared with Citrix's.
> > >
> > > Like I say, this isn't my decision.  I'm just cracking the whip to
> > > make
> > sure people actually get what they're asking for.  If the group
> > decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond, then that's a
> > decision that's open to them.
> > >
> > > Ewan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > >> Adrian Cole
> > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >>
> > >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess we'll
> > >> have
> > to either
> > >> convince you or deal with your decision.
> > >>
> > >> -A
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > >> <Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code for
> > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked".  If someone can convince me
> > >> > that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of open
> > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy to
> > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be
> > >> > Query API only.  If it can't be done in the next two weeks then
> > >> > we're talking about slipping the
> > >> release, and no-one wants that.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ewan.
> > >> >
> > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL
> > >> > > > interface as well as the Query API.
> > >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the query
API...
> > >> > > which would then need testing.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -chip
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > >> > > <Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> > >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> > >> > > >> <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > Just curious.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge
was
> > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just
rip out
> > >> > > >> > the
> > SOAP
> > >> interface?
> > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating
the first
> > >> > > >> > version of
> > >> > > something.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > -A
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing.  In this case,
> > >> > > >> deprecate = rip
> > >> > it out.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Are we saying that?  We've got 6 working days of general
> > >> > > > development
> > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release.  Can we get
> > >> > > the query
> > >> > API
> > >> > > implemented in that time?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking
at
> > >> > > > what
> > >> > happens
> > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs.  The server stubs are already in the
> > >> > > code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be present
> anyway.
> > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Ewan.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >
> >

Mime
View raw message