On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:28 AM, sebgoa <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:02 AM, sebgoa <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I would like to help bring this thread to consensus. >>> I re-read the wiki: >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/CloudStack+Marketplace+Proposal >>> >>> The biggest issues that I believe drew concerns are: >>> 1-Mention of an Apache CloudStack listing repository >>> 2-Mention of including a listing repository in the source code. >>> >>> To keep it short, we don't want to become liable for any image that a >>> CloudStack user would run on its cloud. We also don't want the source code >>> to contain anything that would be seen as product placement from any >>> vendors. >>> >>> That said if the wiki page was modified to remove the mention of "an apache >>> cloudstack listing repository" and "inclusion in source code" and geared >>> more towards contributing a plugin that would enable cloudstack users to >>> link to a third party marketplace if they so desired. Then this would be >>> agreeable. >>> >>> I also believe this should be "disabled" by default with empty "listing >>> repositories". >>> >>> If this is agreeable, Jie Feng and co. could run a marketplace on their own >>> and Cloudstack users could link to it. I could also work with the >>> opennebula folks to make the plugin generic enough to tie to their >>> marketplace. >>> >>> Thoughts ? (not too many flames, it's christmas soon :) ) >>> >>> -Sebastien >>> >> >> I'm +1 to most of the above. >> >> One follow up comment that I'd like further discussion on, is the >> necessity of having users go to a marketplace page vs extending the VM >> provisioning GUI to support a more robust collection of template >> sources (and supporting material). > > Yes, I will take this as a requirement. > > Note that a marketplace can extend beyond just images (as described in Jie's > proposal, SaaS offerings etc...). If it does then it would not lend itself > nicely within the existing template listing or in the VM provisioning UI > during instantiation. > >
Yes, but the manifestation of one of those alternative scenarios will be effectively (for lack of a better term) a vApp / CloudFormation like description of the VMs and their networking requirements. It seems like it would need some refinement on the UI approach to accommodate, but I still think that they are very related. > >> >>> >>> On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:56 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:08:00PM +0000, Hugo Trippaers wrote: >>>>> Getting a bit late into the discussion here, but i agree with Chip here. >>>>> >>>>> I'm already uncomfortable with the idea for a marketplace inside >>>>> CloudStack, but providing just the features allow some external party >>>>> (or parties) to set something up should be ok. But neither the ASF nor >>>>> we as a community should maintain such a marketplace. We as a community >>>>> are responsible for maintaining and distributing the CloudStack source >>>>> code, initiatives like a market place seem better suited to a commercial >>>>> entity or another group that is not directly related to maintaining the >>>>> source code of CloudStack. >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> jzb >>>> -- >>>> Joe Brockmeier >>>> http://dissociatedpress.net/ >>>> Twitter: @jzb >>> > >
