Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com
 designates 62.200.22.115 as permitted sender)
From: Ewan Mellor <Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
	<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
CC: Prachi Damle <Prachi.Damle@citrix.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:58:43 +0100
Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Thread-Topic: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Thread-Index: Ac1w6KDnc8sHE3bKQTie9py7V2Sd0AAAEjlQ
Message-ID: 
 <6005BE083BF501439A84DC3523BAC82DE44D7E3E2E@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: <CC3F2175.297B3%chiradeep.vittal@citrix.com>
	<CA+96GG4Zia=NnTJYM18wXEv=j1=xW_i_SJ4HmYhKQYB6-kB27A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAARMrHW0EWT6BASJSJuoJ+cHMT_A3UY3oPz2RigSPGdVA-zX7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+96GG4XsvN-tB5apGCtqO5SWAnc+9_5wbO8aG-j5-irtcoL_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<6005BE083BF501439A84DC3523BAC82DE44D7E3DFF@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
	<CA+96GG7SW48zOuojmUQ1Qatg1=VyD1DOd+aOriQSUUAPHRv8fg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6005BE083BF501439A84DC3523BAC82DE44D7E3E0D@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
	<CAARMrHWRYnNKvhywXBoeZK2DUWAaxcTa4rgmEc7qqw8OnK5RPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6005BE083BF501439A84DC3523BAC82DE44D7E3E17@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
	<CA+96GG7bvpLmJuAp=BK=5keiw9B1JDeRvpYC-xDmq3s7s4kTMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAARMrHXo+=LbAyP_3Oy1oFqiNQxEn4-i8nqtoRQeUnr-8+Q2+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<6005BE083BF501439A84DC3523BAC82DE44D7E3E21@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
	<7914B38A4445B34AA16EB9F1352942F1012F0DE66705@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
 <CAARMrHWwf=7tqMUtsdxSA0Sy7bwVESBO+9AvAJFhKeRjNQD-Yg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAARMrHWwf=7tqMUtsdxSA0Sy7bwVESBO+9AvAJFhKeRjNQD-Yg@mail.gmail.com>
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

OK, then please share your test results on the Query API side, and we can t=
ake a look.  We've got two weeks to get it in good shape -- sounds like ple=
nty 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)
>=20
> Right, so here's the opportunity!
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> -A
> On Aug 2, 2012 12:36 PM, "Sudha Ponnaganti"
> <sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>=20
> > 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 =3D 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.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >