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 Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com
 designates 203.166.19.134 as permitted sender)
From: Vijay Venkatachalam <Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
	<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 23:05:53 +0530
Subject: RE: Integrating autoscale branch to master?
Thread-Topic: Integrating autoscale branch to master?
Thread-Index: Ac3IB1ZEbEnZcXaESO+rAEPUsZL51QABqDqw
Message-ID: 
 <33740054EBF5B64BB213E2E0916F2C13EECE5BD18C@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
References: 
 <33740054EBF5B64BB213E2E0916F2C13EC3C1A6614@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
	<50783772.6050505@widodh.nl>
	<33740054EBF5B64BB213E2E0916F2C13EC3C1A6619@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
	<50783B2F.3000808@widodh.nl>
	<33740054EBF5B64BB213E2E0916F2C13EC3C1A6620@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
	<CAKprHVbXSbUTTSg6AqMaW+OQJFxxKaB-1avxQzO6JUu0Z1x4vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<33740054EBF5B64BB213E2E0916F2C13EECE5BC6D6@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
	<35F04D4C394874409D9BE4BF45AC5EA9010451036137@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
	<35F04D4C394874409D9BE4BF45AC5EA90104510362DC@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
 <CA+96GG5ne_AweTm9H1autaOh3choMzT_xM3Qo3bTHgkux68nLQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+96GG5ne_AweTm9H1autaOh3choMzT_xM3Qo3bTHgkux68nLQ@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


Is someone hosting the non-oss jars in a single place, I can share the late=
st NetScaler jar file and we can update the repository(ies).

Thanks,
Vijay.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:13 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Integrating autoscale branch to master?
>=20
> Where can I access the appropriate Netscaler jar?  I'd like to test the m=
odule
> with the new additions, and the jar that I have from prior to the 4.0 rel=
ease
> doesn't have several of the referenced classes.
>=20
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Ram Ganesh <Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > Any thoughts? Unless we hear otherwise would like to push the patches.
> This feature had been code complete for a very long time. If there are st=
ill
> concerns/opinions let us know and we can take steps to correct them.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ram
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ram Ganesh [mailto:Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com]
> >> Sent: 15 November 2012 07:09
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: Integrating autoscale branch to master?
> >>
> >> David,
> >>
> >> Can we go ahead with merge of AutoScale code into master? Are there
> >> any more open questions?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ram
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Vijay Venkatachalam [mailto:Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com]
> >> > Sent: 13 November 2012 12:34
> >> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > Subject: RE: Integrating autoscale branch to master?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >