Rajesh, is this done? --David
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Rajesh Battala <rajesh.batt...@citrix.com> wrote: > 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 >
