+1 This is what drove us to choose the vendor SDK originally.
Kelven On 8/9/12 10:36 AM, "Will Chan" <will.c...@citrix.com> wrote: >> From: Matthew Patton [mailto:mpat...@inforelay.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:20 AM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] VMware support was: Re: vijava - some additional >> thoughts >> Pardon my ignorance but why on earth would you NOT use the vendor >> SDK/API or even their CLI tools? The point of cloud automation is to >> sensibly and in the right order invoke the vendor's interfaces to >>accomplish >> a task; NOT reinvent the damn wheel be it 'vijava' or any other >>half-assed >> reimplementation. >> >> If the problem is vendor licensing terms not being compatible with >>Apache, >> so be it. You simply exclude it from the distro but you point users at >>where >> to get it and how to make any (minor) adjustments to cloudstack >> configuration parameters. >> > >+1 > >Exactly my point. We should be using the official vendor tool whenever >possible and if there is a license issue, point the users to how to get >to those official tools. Less headache in the future. > >Will
