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>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:39:28 +0100
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] VMware support was: Re: vijava - some additional
 thoughts
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] VMware support was: Re: vijava - some additional
 thoughts
Thread-Index: Ac12UFAUI/teMvllSMyPECKT75sENgAAD4sQAA3bniA=
Message-ID: 
 <6005BE083BF501439A84DC3523BAC82DE44D7E42E8@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: 
 <CAKprHVY=sjnrOCO1dsDvVoj4UGXGg26OKqG_V+gvhpqBRKnEug@mail.gmail.com>
 <2C97F788CCC013428671BC3A5FC2F64D057344@c-mail.cloud-valley.com.cn>
 <61AE1E2837A06D4A8E98B796183842D401292FF6B7AB@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
 <CAKprHVbKjhtZKAY4_oy0fHRUsaHYkiUVf0KZmOc042QbQqaQ1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <61AE1E2837A06D4A8E98B796183842D401292FF6B7C8@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
In-Reply-To: 
 <61AE1E2837A06D4A8E98B796183842D401292FF6B7C8@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Chan [mailto:will.chan@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:11 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] VMware support was: Re: vijava - some additional
> thoughts
>=20
> > From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 9:58 AM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] VMware support was: Re: vijava - some
> additional
> > thoughts
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Will Chan <will.chan@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > > I prefer the same option "remove VMware SDK from the build" idea as
> > well.  I wouldn't even go as far as adding in other libraries.  If
> people want to
> > use VMWare, I am hoping we can just give them additional instructions
> on
> > how to do that.
> >
> > I am not opposed to dropping VMware support from the default build
> for
> > 4.0, but continuing forward with after that when there are (at least
> > potentially)  two alternatives that would permit us to provide VMware
> > support in the default build and convenience binaries strikes me as a
> > disservice to our users.
> >
> > --David
>=20
> The issue with using some open source version of the vmware SDK is that
> it is not as well tested as the official one.  Even things like the
> vmware tools that you have to install in guest VMs have issues in
> feature supports between the open source version and the official one
> (based on Citrix testing).   In my opinion, if there is any way we can
> continue to use the official vmware SDK but perhaps make it a bit of a
> nuisance to get it to work is still better than using another library
> that isn't as stable and dealing with workarounds to make it work.
> Another plus is that you will get Citrix QA for free on testing the
> vmware SDK on all vSphere versions (4.1, 5.0, and 6.x when it's
> released).  Bottom line is that by using other alternatives,  I would
> hate to have code that says if (sdk =3D=3D opensource version) { do this
> workaround...} else {do what the official SDK allows }.  Of course,
> someone could probably refactor some of the code to be a bit more
> pluggable as to what thirdparty libs are being used but I doubt it's
> doing that today.

This thread sounds like consensus for:

* Remove VMware support from the default build
* Provide instructions for acquiring the SDK and manually compiling VMware =
support
* Re-open the vijava discussion once 4.0 is out the door.

Everyone agreed?

Ewan.