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 sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com
 designates 66.165.176.63 as permitted sender)
From: Sudha Ponnaganti <sudha.ponnaganti@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 12:35:41 -0700
Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Thread-Topic: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Thread-Index: Ac1w1F0FnU/xUZuOR8OUPfnAS/BR7AAA24vQAANSZSA=
Message-ID: 
 <7914B38A4445B34AA16EB9F1352942F1012F0DE66705@SJCPMAILBOX01.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>
In-Reply-To: 
 <6005BE083BF501439A84DC3523BAC82DE44D7E3E21@LONPMAILBOX01.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

Hi,

EC2 SOAP API testing has been done.=20
Here are test results : http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/EC2+API+suppo=
rt+-+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]=20
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 br=
oken for a long time (a problem with the signature-checking code, so nothin=
g 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=20
> 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)
>=20
> Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API?  Ex.
> Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
>=20
> Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with subjective=20
> quality assessments.  Hopefully, you can dispell that with a test=20
> suite I can run to show objectively the quality of the SOAP API.
>=20
> I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact in=20
> jclouds we are already doing this for greenqloud.  There are a couple=20
> glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted.
>=20
> -A
> On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.childers@sungard.com>
> wrote:
>=20
> > Ewan,
> >
> > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around the=20
> > release process.  We have all agreed that getting to a "legal"=20
> > release is the priority, and we also agreed to target a time-bound=20
> > release model.  It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the one to=20
> > "crack the wip".  It was needed.  Perhaps we need to look at how to=20
> > rotate that around the community for future releases, so that=20
> > everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
> >
> > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I=20
> > think we need to compromise a bit here.  If Prachi can get=20
> > everything working without the WSDL files being in the source tree,=20
> > 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=20
> > API, my personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API=20
> > intact.  If we run into issues making it work without the WSDL's,=20
> > we'll need an alternative strategy to deal with the licensing /=20
> > copyright issue for those files.
> >
> > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that we=20
> > aim to convert from SOAP to Query.  That will require testing=20
> > effort, but I believe it's the right move long term.  Assuming the=20
> > WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this deprecation step would be in a futu=
re release.
> > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in the=20
> > 4.0 release notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP to Query.
> > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with that=20
> > strategy.
> >
> > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
> >
> > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting to=20
> > remove the WSDL files).
> > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the SOAP=20
> > API intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
> > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the SOAP=20
> > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing required to=20
> > assess quality for the Query API.  This would allow us to make an=20
> > informed decision about how to handle the situation.
> >
> > -chip
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor=20
> > <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=20
> > that they don't want time-based releases after all, then we can=20
> > start again with a new release plan.
> > >
> > > That's not what people have asked for though.  We've asked the=20
> > > question
> > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as soon=20
> > as you can.  We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months=20
> > (it will be five months on the current release plan) and we're=20
> > already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't use Apache=20
> > releases because they are crippled compared with Citrix's.
> > >
> > > Like I say, this isn't my decision.  I'm just cracking the whip to=20
> > > make
> > sure people actually get what they're asking for.  If the group=20
> > decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond, then that's a=20
> > 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=20
> > >> 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=20
> > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked".  If someone can convince=20
> > >> > me that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of open=20
> > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy to=20
> > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be=20
> > >> > Query API only.  If it can't be done in the next two weeks then=20
> > >> > 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=20
> > >> > > > 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=20
> > >> > > <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=20
> > >> > > >> <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > Just curious.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was=20
> > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip out=20
> > >> > > >> > the
> > SOAP
> > >> interface?
> > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the=20
> > >> > > >> > first version of
> > >> > > something.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > -A
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing.  In this case,=20
> > >> > > >> deprecate =3D rip
> > >> > it out.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Are we saying that?  We've got 6 working days of general=20
> > >> > > > development
> > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release.  Can we get=20
> > >> > > the query
> > >> > API
> > >> > > implemented in that time?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking=20
> > >> > > > at what
> > >> > happens
> > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs.  The server stubs are already in=20
> > >> > > the code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be=20
> > >> > > present
> anyway.
> > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Ewan.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >
> >