incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adrian Cole <adrian.f.c...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:28:42 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message