Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API? Ex. Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with subjective quality assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell that with a test suite I can run to show objectively the quality of the SOAP API. I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact in jclouds we are already doing this for greenqloud. There are a couple glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted. -A On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > 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... ;-) > > 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. > > -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. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >
