Edison, Cool. Sorry for the mini-freak out. I also posted my design thoughts to the "new storage framework update" thread started a little bit back.
Thanks, -John On Jan 8, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > Yes, there is no immediate change to s3-backed storage code on master branch > after javelin is merged into master. As I haven't glue the new storage code > on javelin branch with storage related api calls yet, so all the existing > storage code on master will/should work as it is. > After the merge, we can decide when to use the new storage framework code. I > think all we agree on that the storage code needs to be refactored, and if > then we agree on how to do it, that will be the time we can switch to new > storage code. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:44 AM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge Javelin branch into master >> >> Edison, >> >> So the current changes for S3-backed Secondary Storage will not be impacted >> by the Javelin's new storage architecture? >> >> Thanks, >> -John >> >> On Jan 8, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:13 AM >>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Merge Javelin branch into master >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> Will this merge be pre or post 4.1.0? I am concerned regarding the >>>> S3-backed >>> >>> Plan before 4.1.0. >>> >>>> Secondary Storage feature. Looking at this branch, the work done to >>>> support >>>> S3 does not appear to compatible with the new storage architecture, >>>> and I don't think there is enough time before 31 Jan 2013 to >>>> retrofit. I also have >>> >>> The existing storage code on master will not be changed, as the most of our >> changes on javelin branch are in the fresh new maven projects. >>> >>>> design concerns which I raise on a separate thread. >>> >>> >>> I'd like to know your comments on the design. >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -John >>>> >>>> On Jan 8, 2013, at 12:08 PM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> The problem that Howie is talking about is that none of our >>>>>> projects are structured in the "standard" maven layout. This isn't >>>>>> just a test source issue. >>>>>> >>>>> I'm saying maven have a way to accommodate for that by specifying >>>>> exactly >>>> where the directory should be in the pom.xml. >>>>> >>>>> Like I said though, I don't know why it doesn't follow standard layout. >>>> Maybe it was just easier to do the maven conversion this way? I >>>> think all the directories in javelin has follow the current layout in >>>> 4.0 as well. We can make all of the javelin directories follow the >>>> standard if there was no clear call on how to layout the structures >> originally. >>>>> >>>>> --Alex >>> >
