> -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: 02 August 2012 10:12 > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: Prachi Damle > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query) > > Ewan, > > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around the release > process. We have all agreed that getting to a "legal" release is the > priority, > and we also agreed to target a time-bound release model. It's a thank-less > job sometimes to be the one to "crack the wip". It was needed. Perhaps we > need to look at how to rotate that around the community for future > releases, so that everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
Yes, I don't want to be release manager forever! That's definitely a job that we can share around the community, and I'd love volunteers. > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I think we need > to > compromise a bit here. If Prachi can get everything working without the > WSDL files being in the source tree, 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 API, my > personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API intact. If we run into > issues making it work without the WSDL's, we'll need an alternative strategy > to deal with the licensing / copyright issue for those files. > > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that we aim to > convert from SOAP to Query. That will require testing effort, but I believe > it's > the right move long term. Assuming the WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this > deprecation step would be in a future release. > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in the 4.0 release > notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP to Query. > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with that strategy. > > To summarize, can we agree on the following? > > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting to remove the > WSDL files). > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the SOAP API intact, > but > with a notice of planned deprecation. > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the SOAP API for > this release, and do some of the basic testing required to assess quality for > the Query API. This would allow us to make an informed decision about how > to handle the situation. One correction: Prachi is a "she" ;-) I'll let other people comment on whether they like this plan. I'm not familiar with how many people are using the SOAP API vs the Query one. Cheers, Ewan. > > -chip > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor <ewan.mel...@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 that they don't > want time-based releases after all, then we can start again with a new > release plan. > > > > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked the question > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as soon as you > can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months (it will be five > months on the current release plan) and we're already seeing articles saying > that you shouldn't use Apache releases because they are crippled compared > with Citrix's. > > > > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the whip to make sure > people actually get what they're asking for. If the group decides that it > wants > to slip to October or beyond, then that's a decision that's open to them. > > > > Ewan. > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: fernc...@gmail.com [mailto:fernc...@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 have > >> to either convince you or deal with your decision. > >> > >> -A > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor > >> <ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com>wrote: > >> > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code for > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can convince me > >> > that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of open > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy to take > >> > that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be Query API > >> > only. If it can't be done in the next two weeks then we're talking > >> > about slipping the > >> release, and no-one wants that. > >> > > >> > Ewan. > >> > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@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 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 > >> > > <ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@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 > >> > > >> <adrian.f.c...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Just curious. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip out the > >> > > >> > SOAP > >> interface? > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first > >> > > >> > version of > >> > > something. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -A > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case, deprecate > >> > > >> = rip > >> > it out. > >> > > > > >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general > >> > > > development > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get the > >> > > query > >> > API > >> > > implemented in that time? > >> > > > > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking at > >> > > > what > >> > happens > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in the > >> > > code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be present > anyway. > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true. > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Ewan. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
