incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pranav Saxena <pranav.sax...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: Integrating autoscale branch to master?- Autoscale feature merged with asf/master
Date Fri, 16 Nov 2012 10:18:40 GMT
Hi , 

I have helped Vijay in merging the AutoScale code with asf/master branch after David's approval
. Vijay Venkatachalam , Jessica Wang , Brian Federle and myself  have been involved in writing
the AutoScale code . Please let us know in case there are any concerns.

Vijay Venkatachalam will update the community more about merging of the autoscale code with
asf/master.

Thanks & Regards,
Pranav

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay Venkatachalam [mailto:Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 1:14 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Integrating autoscale branch to master?

> * When this merge happens, the default build will not require the the 
> Netscaler libraries to successfully complete.
> If the above is indeed the case, I have no objections.

That is right, no NetScaler jars required for the default oss build! 
Final round of unit testing is getting done, will do the merge tomorrow.

Thanks,
Vijay V.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 12:58 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Integrating autoscale branch to master?
> 
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Vijay Venkatachalam 
> <Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> > My replies inline
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vijay V.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> >> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 7:42 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Integrating autoscale branch to master?
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Vijay Venkatachalam 
> >> <Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> > Ok I will keep changes ready, and will merge once 4.0's news is declared.
> >> >
> >> > -Vijay V.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Vijay,
> >>
> >> I haven't kept up with this recently so a couple of questions/assumptions:
> >>
> >> 1. Autoscale code will require NetScaler libraries right?
> >
> > There are 2 parts to autoscale code.
> > A. AutoScale Manager and its services,
> >   This is part of the core. And has no No Netscaler jar dependency;
> >   This part is coded like any other NetworkServiceManager, meaning 
> > any
> network
> >   element can provide autoscale service.  So this part does not have 
> > compile
> time
> >   dependency with NetScaler jar.
> >
> >   If an autoscale provider (which is most likely already an LB 
> > provider) does
> not exist
> >   in that network an error is thrown at run time.
> >   So for all oss builds (where Netscaler is not packaged and cannot be added
> >   to the infrastructure) we should get a run-time error when 
> > configuring
> autoscale.
> >
> > B. NetScaler Element and Netscaler Resource (which is part of 
> > non-oss
> build today)
> >      has been enhanced to provide autoscale capability. Today only
> >      NetScaler does this, in future any network element can he enhanced
> >      to provide autoscale. This part already has NetScaler jar dependency
> >      (and is considered non-oss today)  and will continue to have NetScaler
> >       jar dependency.
> >
> >
> >> 2. Is autoscale functionality modular enough that we can turn 
> >> building it on/off at will?
> >
> >
> > Short Answer, No.
> > Since AutoScale is like an addon to LB there are touch- points. For 
> > example, when a LoadBalancerRule is deleted the AutoScale entities 
> > created for it also should be deleted, hence the dependency.
> > Basically there is code in LB core to delete autoscale entities on 
> > the loadbalancer rule's delete path. Hence Part (A.) could not be modularized.
> Is there an alternative here?
> >
> > Also, in the UI autoscale will appear as part of LB to the user and 
> > if he attempts to configure AutoScale in a network which does not 
> > have
> NetScaler; he will get a run-time error.
> >
> >> 3. Has there been any change to the netscaler java library licensing?
> >> I know there was work underway, but I never heard about a conclusion.
> >>
> >
> > I am still chasing the legal team on this, but for the moment, we 
> > should continue to treat NetScaler as non-oss.
> >
> >> --David
> 
> 
> Thanks for my reply. What I surmise from all of this is:
> * When this merge happens, the default build will not require the the 
> Netscaler libraries to successfully complete.
> 
> If the above is indeed the case, I have no objections.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --David

Mime
View raw message