Yes Ewan, I would be doing this work. Thanks Rajesh Battala
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:03 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Hibernate > > OK, good. So it's a small job. So is Rajesh doing that? > > Ewan. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com] > > Sent: 16 July 2012 17:03 > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: RE: Hibernate > > > > My understanding is it's one table and is already wrapped by a DAO. > > The DAO object uses hibernate underneath. Don't think it's a big job. > > > > --Alex > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com] > > > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 4:43 PM > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: Hibernate > > > > > > If I read this infinitely long thread correctly, the conclusion is > > that > > > CloudStack/awsapi needs to be rewritten to use the CloudStack DAO > > instead > > > of Hibernate. Is that correct? > > > > > > If so, who is doing this work, and when? That sounds like a big job. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Ewan. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 11:31 PM > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > Subject: RE: Hibernate > > > > > > > > Rajesh, > > > > > > > > You should use the existing CloudStack DAO framework. If > > cloudstack > > > > will move to another ORM framework, it will have to be done in > > > > such > > a > > > > fashion that everything above the DAO layer doesn't have to change > > and > > > > the majority of the current DAO code do not have to change as well. > > > > Which would mean your code should migrate over along with the rest > > of > > > > the changes. > > > > > > > > --Alex > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Rajesh Battala [mailto:rajesh.batt...@citrix.com] > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 10:59 PM > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > Subject: RE: Hibernate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Kelven Yang [mailto:kelven.y...@citrix.com] > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 3:31 AM > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > Subject: RE: Hibernate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 10:37 AM > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Hibernate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Rajesh Battala > > > > > > > <rajesh.batt...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > >> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] > > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 8:40 PM > > > > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: Hibernate > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Rajesh Battala > > > > > > > >> <rajesh.batt...@citrix.com> > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > Shall I proceed to replace Hibernate Framework with > > Spring > > > > JDBC. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> This is not a design decision to take lightly, or rush - > > as > > > > we've > > > > > > > >> talked about replacing the custom ORM that CloudStack > > > > > > > >> uses > > as > > > > > > > >> well > > > > > > > >> - we'd want to make a decision on something that we are > > > > > > > >> comfortable with > > > > > > > in that role as well. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [Rajesh Battala] > > > > > > > > So we are planning to implement some ORM framework for > > > > CloudStack > > > > > > also? > > > > > > > > If so, then we need to evaluate the available ORM > > frameworks > > > > for > > > > > > > > java > > > > > > > which are based on Apache License? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to speak for Alex, but I have heard him mention > > > > > > > such > > > > a > > > > > > > change number of times, and have seen it in his slides as > > well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the larger sense is that if we are going to change > > something > > > > in > > > > > > > AWSAPI for communicating to the database, it should be > > something > > > > > > > that we are comfortable with adopting in the long term for > > the > > > > rest > > > > > > > of CloudStack, otherwise we'll end up with two different > > > > > > > ways for connecting to the database, which is fail. > > > > > > > > > > > > For Rajesh's concern in the short term (to get rid of > > Hibernate), > > > > we > > > > > > basically have following options, > > > > > > 1) Make the project depend on utils.jar in CloudStack and use > > > > existing > > > > > > CloudStack persistent layer. > > > > > > 2) Continue to make CloudBridge project independent > > > > > > a) use direct JDBC > > > > > > b) use Spring JDBC > > > > > > c) use ORM framework on Spring (i.e. OpenJPA etc) > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote on 2-b for a short term resolution. For a couple of > > > > > > reasons, > > > > > > > > > > > > The major reason is for adopting Spring, EC2/S3 API in the > > future > > > > may > > > > > > both need to support SOAP based web service API and REST API, > > > > Spring > > > > > > comes with support of both, in addition, it provides > > > > > > dependency injection, AOP and pluggable ORM framework, > > > > > > distributed transaction > > > > > management, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > CloudBridge project has a very simple data model (it has only > > one > > > > > > table for EC2), original ORM (hibernate) usage is just for > > > > convenience > > > > > > (as Alex pointed that it tried to avoid direct SQL > > manipulation), > > > > on > > > > > > the other hand, giving the DAO abstraction, a limited amount > > > > > > of > > > > JDBC > > > > > > should not matter too much either. With Spring and already > > > > > > existing DAO abstraction, we can leave bigger ORM decision for > > the > > > future. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the long term, ORM choice to us seems to be secondary > > > > > > consideration, giving the fact that our current custom ORM > > > > > > implementation serves its purpose well enough in CloudStack. > > But I > > > > do > > > > > > see the needs of more flexible dependency injection or > > transaction > > > > > > management framework in order to incorporate better > > > > > > integration > > > > with > > > > > > external transactional systems like message queue servers. I > > also > > > > see > > > > > > the needs of standardizing AOP patterns used in current > > CloudStack > > > > > > code base, Spring provides some good answers for that. So > > > > > > there > > is > > > > a > > > > > > possibility that it will be good for CloudStack to adopt it > > like > > > > many > > > > > > other Java communities do, so that we can focus on our own > > > > > > business logic and leave these external concerns to people who > > are > > > > > > doing it > > > > for a > > > > > living. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kelven > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --David > > > > > [Rajesh Battala] > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know conclusion of the thread. > > > > > I didn't see any reply to Kelven suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Rajesh Battala
