incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrian Cole <fernc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:34:44 GMT
Good point, Kelven.

I think there will be no shortage of bindings.  Except .NET, I know there
is at least one binding to EC2 Query api for each language you mention.
Also remember many developers loathe generated WSDL code.  If our interest
is to be appealing to devs, probably best focus on dev friendly tools like
libcloud, boto, fog, etc, all of which use the Query api.

-A

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Kelven Yang <kelven.yang@citrix.com> wrote:

> A major advantage from SOAP/WSDL is that it is very easy to use tools to
> generage client bindings for the API.
>
> I support to do query API only, but it would be even nice if we can in the
> mean time to provide official client bindings(based on query API) for some
> of most popular languages like Java, .NET, python, ruby. This can
> encourage the integration with CloudStack from various systems
>
> Kelven
>
> On 8/2/12 3:08 PM, "Kevin Kluge" <Kevin.Kluge@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> >I'd support doing query only.  If a significant user need for SOAP
> >emerges we can re-evaluate with clear data on the use case or tool that
> >needs it.
> >
> >-kevin
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Duncan Johnston Watt
> >> [mailto:duncan.johnstonwatt@cloudsoftcorp.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 1:05 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >>
> >> Adrian/All
> >>
> >> +1 to focusing on Query API.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Duncan
> >>
> >> On 2 August 2012 22:01, Adrian Cole <ferncam1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Sure thing!  I'll shoot instructions and results after lunch.
> >> > On Aug 2, 2012 12:59 PM, "Ewan Mellor" <Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > OK, then please share your test results on the Query API side, and
> >> > > we can take a look.  We've got two weeks to get it in good shape --
> >> > > sounds like plenty to me!
> >> > >
> >> > > Ewan.
> >> > >
> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf
> >> Of
> >> > > > Adrian Cole
> >> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:54 PM
> >> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Right, so here's the opportunity!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Clear out 50 bugs and a legacy of code to support, and replace
> >> > > > them with the bugs in Query which we would have to address anyway.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I understand there's a time pressure, just that I'd personally
> >> > > > rather not release cloudbridge in v4.0 at all vs establish a
SOAP
> >> > > > legacy to maintain.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -A
> >> > > > On Aug 2, 2012 12:36 PM, "Sudha Ponnaganti"
> >> > > > <sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > EC2 SOAP API testing has been done.
> >> > > > > Here are test results :
> >> > > > > http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/EC2+API+support+-
> >> > > > +Test+Execution
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Two test cycles are done. Second cycle is done to cover
failed
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > blocked
> >> > > > > test cases from first run
> >> > > > >         Total test cases run 250+
> >> > > > >         Total Passed 200 +
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Defects can be found in JIRA
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks
> >> > > > > /Sudha
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com]
> >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:57 AM
> >> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> > > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 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.
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Duncan Johnston-Watt
> >> CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation
> >>
> >> Twitter | @duncanjw
> >> Mobile | +44 777 190 2653
> >> Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt
> >> Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt
> >>
> >> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
> >>  Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
> >>
> >> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only.
> >>If the
> >> message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
> >>the
> >> message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from
> >> your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
> >> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to
> >>this
> >> message after it was sent.
> >>
> >> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
> >> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
> >>onward
> >> transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will
> >>not
> >> adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by
> >> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient should
> >>carry
> >> out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message