On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Murali Reddy <murali.re...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 08/08/12 1:16 PM, "Tomoe Sugihara" <to...@midokura.com> wrote: > >> >>----------------------------------------------------------- >>This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >>https://reviews.apache.org/r/6464/ >>----------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Review request for cloudstack. >> >> >>Description >>------- >> >>We are working on integrating our SDN technology with CloudStack and >>found that we need to register these inside the code. >>We haven't finished implementation, but it'd be great if this'd be >>accepted in advance in time for 4.0 so we can do integration work against >>4.0 later. We'd be happy to provide our integration code once it's done. > > Fix looks good. But just wondering why would you want just introduce a new > provider which is not functional? If I may suggest, at least get in the > skeleton of the implementation of files that is required. I would be happy > to help with that or you can refer to the Nicira NVP integration to get an > idea of what needs to be changed. > >> >>Let me know if there's any processes or criteria to follow when it comes >>to pushing this kind of vendor specific code. > > I guess there is no process/criteria to follow to push vendor specific > code. Just extend the integration points (NetworkElement, Network Guru, > Provider etc) you will have to in order to support Midokura SDN and keep > the implementation contained as PluggableService so that there is choice > to turn on/off the Midokura SDN controller support.
Hi Murali, I just updated the diff with skeletons. Thanks, Tomoe
