You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Chiradeep Vittal <Ch...@citrix.com> on 2012/08/02 03:09:57 UTC
ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
It appears that the WSDL-based toolset is being deprecated by AWS [1].
Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as well as
the Query API.
However the Query API is not well tested.
Furthermore the implemented WSDL is of 2010-08 vintage.
Does it make sense to likewise deprecate the WSDL interface in the EC2 API
compatibility module?
IMO we should focus on the Query API since everybody else seems to use
this mode (and now even AWS is deprecating it).
[1]
http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AWSEC2/latest/CommandLineReference/CLTRG-
common-args-api.html
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
there's no value to maintaining crufty code no-one wants
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <
Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
> It appears that the WSDL-based toolset is being deprecated by AWS [1].
>
> Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as well as
> the Query API.
> However the Query API is not well tested.
> Furthermore the implemented WSDL is of 2010-08 vintage.
>
> Does it make sense to likewise deprecate the WSDL interface in the EC2 API
> compatibility module?
>
> IMO we should focus on the Query API since everybody else seems to use
> this mode (and now even AWS is deprecating it).
>
> [1]
> http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AWSEC2/latest/CommandLineReference/CLTRG-
> common-args-api.html
>
>
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>.
I agree as well.
It would be better to spend time on supporting a newer query API version.
On Aug 1, 2012, at 11:09 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> It appears that the WSDL-based toolset is being deprecated by AWS [1].
>>
>> Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as well as
>> the Query API.
>> However the Query API is not well tested.
>> Furthermore the implemented WSDL is of 2010-08 vintage.
>>
>> Does it make sense to likewise deprecate the WSDL interface in the EC2 API
>> compatibility module?
>>
>> IMO we should focus on the Query API since everybody else seems to use
>> this mode (and now even AWS is deprecating it).
>
>
> I agree - I hear similar rumblings from the Euca folks when I talk with them.
>
> Besides, we still have this outstanding issue that Chip brought up:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-dev/201208.mbox/ajax/%3CCA%2B96GG4FYxxstCRnXBquZMj5OwpepL5jYPN7BxKo2vm0at%3DvPQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
<Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
> It appears that the WSDL-based toolset is being deprecated by AWS [1].
>
> Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as well as
> the Query API.
> However the Query API is not well tested.
> Furthermore the implemented WSDL is of 2010-08 vintage.
>
> Does it make sense to likewise deprecate the WSDL interface in the EC2 API
> compatibility module?
>
> IMO we should focus on the Query API since everybody else seems to use
> this mode (and now even AWS is deprecating it).
I agree - I hear similar rumblings from the Euca folks when I talk with them.
Besides, we still have this outstanding issue that Chip brought up:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-cloudstack-dev/201208.mbox/ajax/%3CCA%2B96GG4FYxxstCRnXBquZMj5OwpepL5jYPN7BxKo2vm0at%3DvPQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
If the Query API isn't tested well, this is also an issue. Since EC2
ecosystem by-in-large don't use SOAP interfaces, any faults in the Query
API should be treated with higher priority, than SOAP anyway. I'm happy to
help testing the Query interface, especially if it gets us closer to
deleting the SOAP one.
-A
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>wrote:
> From Chiradeep's note:
>
> > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as well as
> > the Query API.
> > However the Query API is not well tested.
>
> So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the query API...
> which would then need testing.
>
> Am I misunderstanding?
>
> -chip
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Just curious.
> >> >
> >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was formerly in a
> >> > different repo, why don't we just rip out the SOAP interface? That's
> >> > a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first version of
> something.
> >> >
> >> > -A
> >>
> >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case, deprecate = rip it
> out.
> >
> > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general development
> time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get the query API
> implemented in that time?
> >
> > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking at what
> happens when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in the code
> base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be present anyway.
> Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> >
> > Ewan.
> >
> >
>
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Prachi Damle <Pr...@citrix.com>.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:35 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Prachi Damle
Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> One correction: Prachi is a "she" ;-)
>How rude of me. Apologies Prachi!
No worries :) I will update the list soon on whether awsapi EC2 works without carrying the WSDLs in the source code.
-Prachi
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> One correction: Prachi is a "she" ;-)
How rude of me. Apologies Prachi!
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: 02 August 2012 10:12
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Prachi Damle
> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>
> Ewan,
>
> First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around the release
> process. We have all agreed that getting to a "legal" release is the priority,
> and we also agreed to target a time-bound release model. It's a thank-less
> job sometimes to be the one to "crack the wip". It was needed. Perhaps we
> need to look at how to rotate that around the community for future
> releases, so that everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
Yes, I don't want to be release manager forever! That's definitely a job that we can share around the community, and I'd love volunteers.
> On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I think we need to
> compromise a bit here. If Prachi can get everything working without the
> WSDL files being in the source tree, then that would be sufficient to achieve
> our primary objective for the release.
> Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the query API, my
> personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API intact. If we run into
> issues making it work without the WSDL's, we'll need an alternative strategy
> to deal with the licensing / copyright issue for those files.
>
> Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that we aim to
> convert from SOAP to Query. That will require testing effort, but I believe it's
> the right move long term. Assuming the WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this
> deprecation step would be in a future release.
> However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in the 4.0 release
> notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP to Query.
> This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with that strategy.
>
> To summarize, can we agree on the following?
>
> 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting to remove the
> WSDL files).
> 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the SOAP API intact, but
> with a notice of planned deprecation.
> 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the SOAP API for
> this release, and do some of the basic testing required to assess quality for
> the Query API. This would allow us to make an informed decision about how
> to handle the situation.
One correction: Prachi is a "she" ;-)
I'll let other people comment on whether they like this plan. I'm not familiar with how many people are using the SOAP API vs the Query one.
Cheers,
Ewan.
>
> -chip
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has asked for time-
> based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people decide that they don't
> want time-based releases after all, then we can start again with a new
> release plan.
> >
> > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked the question
> multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as soon as you
> can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months (it will be five
> months on the current release plan) and we're already seeing articles saying
> that you shouldn't use Apache releases because they are crippled compared
> with Citrix's.
> >
> > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the whip to make sure
> people actually get what they're asking for. If the group decides that it wants
> to slip to October or beyond, then that's a decision that's open to them.
> >
> > Ewan.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> >> Adrian Cole
> >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >>
> >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess we'll have
> >> to either convince you or deal with your decision.
> >>
> >> -A
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> >>
> >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code for
> >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can convince me
> >> > that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of open
> >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy to take
> >> > that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be Query API
> >> > only. If it can't be done in the next two weeks then we're talking
> >> > about slipping the
> >> release, and no-one wants that.
> >> >
> >> > Ewan.
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >> > >
> >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface
> >> > > > as well as the Query API.
> >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> >> > >
> >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the query API...
> >> > > which would then need testing.
> >> > >
> >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> >> > >
> >> > > -chip
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> >> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >> > Just curious.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was
> >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip out the
> >> > > >> > SOAP
> >> interface?
> >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first
> >> > > >> > version of
> >> > > something.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > -A
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case, deprecate
> >> > > >> = rip
> >> > it out.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general
> >> > > > development
> >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get the
> >> > > query
> >> > API
> >> > > implemented in that time?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking at
> >> > > > what
> >> > happens
> >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in the
> >> > > code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be present
> anyway.
> >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ewan.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Prachi Damle <Pr...@citrix.com>.
Hi Chip,
I have committed the change to remove WSDLs from the source tree.
-Prachi
-----Original Message-----
From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 4:51 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Prachi Damle <Pr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> After removing the AWS WSDLs from source, I tested that awsapi EC2 builds fine and basic EC2 calls using the tools worked.
> So looks like we can do away with the WSDL files from source tree without harm.
>
> -Prachi
Great! Can you let me know when that commit occurs so I can re-run that RAT report please?
-chip
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Prachi Damle <Pr...@citrix.com> wrote:
> After removing the AWS WSDLs from source, I tested that awsapi EC2 builds fine and basic EC2 calls using the tools worked.
> So looks like we can do away with the WSDL files from source tree without harm.
>
> -Prachi
Great! Can you let me know when that commit occurs so I can re-run
that RAT report please?
-chip
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Prachi Damle <Pr...@citrix.com>.
After removing the AWS WSDLs from source, I tested that awsapi EC2 builds fine and basic EC2 calls using the tools worked.
So looks like we can do away with the WSDL files from source tree without harm.
-Prachi
From: Adrian Cole [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 3:35 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Prachi Damle
Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Good point, Kelven.
I think there will be no shortage of bindings. Except .NET, I know there is at least one binding to EC2 Query api for each language you mention. Also remember many developers loathe generated WSDL code. If our interest is to be appealing to devs, probably best focus on dev friendly tools like libcloud, boto, fog, etc, all of which use the Query api.
-A
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com>> wrote:
A major advantage from SOAP/WSDL is that it is very easy to use tools to
generage client bindings for the API.
I support to do query API only, but it would be even nice if we can in the
mean time to provide official client bindings(based on query API) for some
of most popular languages like Java, .NET, python, ruby. This can
encourage the integration with CloudStack from various systems
Kelven
On 8/2/12 3:08 PM, "Kevin Kluge" <Ke...@citrix.com>> wrote:
>I'd support doing query only. If a significant user need for SOAP
>emerges we can re-evaluate with clear data on the use case or tool that
>needs it.
>
>-kevin
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Duncan Johnston Watt
>> [mailto:duncan.johnstonwatt@cloudsoftcorp.com<ma...@cloudsoftcorp.com>]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 1:05 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Cc: Prachi Damle
>> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>>
>> Adrian/All
>>
>> +1 to focusing on Query API.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Duncan
>>
>> On 2 August 2012 22:01, Adrian Cole <fe...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> > Sure thing! I'll shoot instructions and results after lunch.
>> > On Aug 2, 2012 12:59 PM, "Ewan Mellor" <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > OK, then please share your test results on the Query API side, and
>> > > we can take a look. We've got two weeks to get it in good shape --
>> > > sounds like plenty to me!
>> > >
>> > > Ewan.
>> > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>] On Behalf
>> Of
>> > > > Adrian Cole
>> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:54 PM
>> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
>> > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
>> > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > >
>> > > > Right, so here's the opportunity!
>> > > >
>> > > > Clear out 50 bugs and a legacy of code to support, and replace
>> > > > them with the bugs in Query which we would have to address anyway.
>> > > >
>> > > > I understand there's a time pressure, just that I'd personally
>> > > > rather not release cloudbridge in v4.0 at all vs establish a SOAP
>> > > > legacy to maintain.
>> > > >
>> > > > -A
>> > > > On Aug 2, 2012 12:36 PM, "Sudha Ponnaganti"
>> > > > <su...@citrix.com>>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > EC2 SOAP API testing has been done.
>> > > > > Here are test results :
>> > > > > http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/EC2+API+support+-
>> > > > +Test+Execution
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Two test cycles are done. Second cycle is done to cover failed
>> > > > > and
>> > > > blocked
>> > > > > test cases from first run
>> > > > > Total test cases run 250+
>> > > > > Total Passed 200 +
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Defects can be found in JIRA
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks
>> > > > > /Sudha
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com<ma...@eu.citrix.com>]
>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:57 AM
>> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
>> > > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
>> > > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The only metric that we have (to my knowledge) is that the Query
>> > > > > API
>> > > > was
>> > > > > broken for a long time (a problem with the signature-checking
>> > > > > code,
>> > > > so
>> > > > > nothing worked at all). So the SOAP API is the one that's had
>> > > > > all
>> > > > the love
>> > > > > from us. If you have test results, then that's far better.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ewan.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>] On
>> Behalf
>> > > > > > Of Adrian Cole
>> > > > > > Sent: 02 August 2012 10:29
>> > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
>> > > > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
>> > > > > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API?
>> Ex.
>> > > > > > Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with
>> > > > > > subjective quality assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell
>> > > > > > that with a test suite I can run to show objectively the
>>quality of the
>> SOAP API.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact
>> > > > > > in jclouds we are already doing this for greenqloud. There
>> > > > > > are a
>> > > > couple
>> > > > > > glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -A
>> > > > > > On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers"
>> > > > <ch...@sungard.com>>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ewan,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone
>> > > > > > > around
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > release process. We have all agreed that getting to a
>>"legal"
>> > > > > > > release is the priority, and we also agreed to target a
>> > > > > > > time-
>> > > > bound
>> > > > > > > release model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the
>> > > > > > > one to "crack the wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to
>> > > > > > > look at how
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > rotate that around the community for future releases, so
>> > > > > > > that everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat...
>> > > > > > > ;-)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first
>> > > > > > > release, I think we need to compromise a bit here. If
>> > > > > > > Prachi can get everything working without the WSDL files
>> > > > > > > being in the source
>> > > > tree,
>> > > > > > > then that would be sufficient to achieve our primary
>> > > > > > > objective
>> > > > for the
>> > > > > release.
>> > > > > > > Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the
>> > > > > > > query API, my personal opinion would be to release with the
>> > > > > > > SOAP API intact. If we run into issues making it work
>> > > > > > > without the WSDL's, we'll need an alternative strategy to
>> > > > > > > deal with the licensing / copyright issue for those files.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > we
>> > > > > > > aim to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require
>> > > > > > > testing effort, but I believe it's the right move long term.
>> > > > > > > Assuming
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this deprecation step would
>> > > > > > > be in
>> > > > a
>> > > > > future release.
>> > > > > > > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice
>> > > > > > > in the
>> > > > > > > 4.0 release notes that expresses our aim to convert from
>> > > > > > > SOAP to
>> > > > Query.
>> > > > > > > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with
>> > > > > > > that strategy.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings
>> > > > > > > (attempting to remove the WSDL files).
>> > > > > > > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the
>> > > > > > > SOAP API intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
>> > > > > > > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > SOAP
>> > > > > > > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing
>> > > > > > > required
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to
>> > > > > > > make an informed decision about how to handle the situation.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -chip
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor
>> > > > > > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has
>> > > > > > > > asked
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > > time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people
>> > > > > > > decide that they don't want time-based releases after all,
>> > > > > > > then we can start again with a new release plan.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked
>> > > > > > > > the question
>> > > > > > > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship
>> > > > > > > as
>> > > > soon
>> > > > > > > as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four
>> > > > > > > months (it will be five months on the current release plan)
>> > > > > > > and we're already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't
>> > > > > > > use Apache releases because they are crippled compared with
>> Citrix's.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the
>> > > > > > > > whip
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > make
>> > > > > > > sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the
>> > > > > > > group decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond,
>> > > > > > > then that's a decision that's open to them.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Ewan.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com>] On
>> > Behalf
>> > > > > > Of
>> > > > > > > >> Adrian Cole
>> > > > > > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
>> > > > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
>> > > > > > > >> Cc: Prachi Damle
>> > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I
>> > > > > > > >> guess
>> > > > we'll
>> > > > > > > >> have
>> > > > > > > to either
>> > > > > > > >> convince you or deal with your decision.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> -A
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
>> > > > > > > >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>>wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be
>> > > > > > > >> > code
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can
>> > > > convince
>> > > > > > > >> > me that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week
>> > > > > > > >> > of
>> > > > open
>> > > > > > > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm
>> > > > > > > >> > happy
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0
>> > > > > > > >> > to be Query API only. If it can't be done in the next
>> > > > > > > >> > two weeks
>> > > > then
>> > > > > > > >> > we're talking about slipping the
>> > > > > > > >> release, and no-one wants that.
>> > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > Ewan.
>> > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > >> > > From: Chip Childers
>> > > > > > > >> > > [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com<ma...@sungard.com>]
>> > > > > > > >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
>> > > > > > > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
>> > > > > > > >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
>> > > > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the
>> > > > > > > >> > > > WSDL interface as well as the Query API.
>> > > > > > > >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with
>> > > > > > > >> > > the
>> > > > query
>> > > > > API...
>> > > > > > > >> > > which would then need testing.
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > -chip
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
>> > > > > > > >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>>
>> > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com<ma...@sungard.com>]
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > > > > > >> > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>>
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > Just curious.
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > cloudbridge
>> > > > was
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > rip
>> > > > out
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > the
>> > > > > > > SOAP
>> > > > > > > >> interface?
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > the first version of
>> > > > > > > >> > > something.
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > -A
>> > > > > > > >> > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> case, deprecate = rip
>> > > > > > > >> > it out.
>> > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of
>> > > > > > > >> > > > general development
>> > > > > > > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can
>> > > > > > > >> > > we
>> > > > get
>> > > > > > > >> > > the query
>> > > > > > > >> > API
>> > > > > > > >> > > implemented in that time?
>> > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is
>> > > > looking
>> > > > > > > >> > > > at what
>> > > > > > > >> > happens
>> > > > > > > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are
>> > > > > > > >> > > already in the code base, so in theory we shouldn't
>> > > > > > > >> > > need the WSDLs to
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > >> > > present
>> > > > > > anyway.
>> > > > > > > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > > Ewan.
>> > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Duncan Johnston-Watt
>> CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation
>>
>> Twitter | @duncanjw
>> Mobile | +44 777 190 2653<tel:%2B44%20777%20190%202653>
>> Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt
>> Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt<http://www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt>
>>
>> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
>> Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
>>
>> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only.
>>If the
>> message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
>>the
>> message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from
>> your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
>> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to
>>this
>> message after it was sent.
>>
>> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
>> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
>>onward
>> transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will
>>not
>> adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by
>> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient should
>>carry
>> out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Adrian Cole <fe...@gmail.com>.
Good point, Kelven.
I think there will be no shortage of bindings. Except .NET, I know there
is at least one binding to EC2 Query api for each language you mention.
Also remember many developers loathe generated WSDL code. If our interest
is to be appealing to devs, probably best focus on dev friendly tools like
libcloud, boto, fog, etc, all of which use the Query api.
-A
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com> wrote:
> A major advantage from SOAP/WSDL is that it is very easy to use tools to
> generage client bindings for the API.
>
> I support to do query API only, but it would be even nice if we can in the
> mean time to provide official client bindings(based on query API) for some
> of most popular languages like Java, .NET, python, ruby. This can
> encourage the integration with CloudStack from various systems
>
> Kelven
>
> On 8/2/12 3:08 PM, "Kevin Kluge" <Ke...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> >I'd support doing query only. If a significant user need for SOAP
> >emerges we can re-evaluate with clear data on the use case or tool that
> >needs it.
> >
> >-kevin
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Duncan Johnston Watt
> >> [mailto:duncan.johnstonwatt@cloudsoftcorp.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 1:05 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >>
> >> Adrian/All
> >>
> >> +1 to focusing on Query API.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Duncan
> >>
> >> On 2 August 2012 22:01, Adrian Cole <fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Sure thing! I'll shoot instructions and results after lunch.
> >> > On Aug 2, 2012 12:59 PM, "Ewan Mellor" <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > OK, then please share your test results on the Query API side, and
> >> > > we can take a look. We've got two weeks to get it in good shape --
> >> > > sounds like plenty to me!
> >> > >
> >> > > Ewan.
> >> > >
> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf
> >> Of
> >> > > > Adrian Cole
> >> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:54 PM
> >> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Right, so here's the opportunity!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Clear out 50 bugs and a legacy of code to support, and replace
> >> > > > them with the bugs in Query which we would have to address anyway.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I understand there's a time pressure, just that I'd personally
> >> > > > rather not release cloudbridge in v4.0 at all vs establish a SOAP
> >> > > > legacy to maintain.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -A
> >> > > > On Aug 2, 2012 12:36 PM, "Sudha Ponnaganti"
> >> > > > <su...@citrix.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > EC2 SOAP API testing has been done.
> >> > > > > Here are test results :
> >> > > > > http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/EC2+API+support+-
> >> > > > +Test+Execution
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Two test cycles are done. Second cycle is done to cover failed
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > blocked
> >> > > > > test cases from first run
> >> > > > > Total test cases run 250+
> >> > > > > Total Passed 200 +
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Defects can be found in JIRA
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks
> >> > > > > /Sudha
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com]
> >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:57 AM
> >> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> > > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > The only metric that we have (to my knowledge) is that the Query
> >> > > > > API
> >> > > > was
> >> > > > > broken for a long time (a problem with the signature-checking
> >> > > > > code,
> >> > > > so
> >> > > > > nothing worked at all). So the SOAP API is the one that's had
> >> > > > > all
> >> > > > the love
> >> > > > > from us. If you have test results, then that's far better.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Ewan.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On
> >> Behalf
> >> > > > > > Of Adrian Cole
> >> > > > > > Sent: 02 August 2012 10:29
> >> > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> > > > > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API?
> >> Ex.
> >> > > > > > Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with
> >> > > > > > subjective quality assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell
> >> > > > > > that with a test suite I can run to show objectively the
> >>quality of the
> >> SOAP API.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact
> >> > > > > > in jclouds we are already doing this for greenqloud. There
> >> > > > > > are a
> >> > > > couple
> >> > > > > > glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > -A
> >> > > > > > On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers"
> >> > > > <ch...@sungard.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Ewan,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone
> >> > > > > > > around
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > release process. We have all agreed that getting to a
> >>"legal"
> >> > > > > > > release is the priority, and we also agreed to target a
> >> > > > > > > time-
> >> > > > bound
> >> > > > > > > release model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the
> >> > > > > > > one to "crack the wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to
> >> > > > > > > look at how
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > rotate that around the community for future releases, so
> >> > > > > > > that everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat...
> >> > > > > > > ;-)
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first
> >> > > > > > > release, I think we need to compromise a bit here. If
> >> > > > > > > Prachi can get everything working without the WSDL files
> >> > > > > > > being in the source
> >> > > > tree,
> >> > > > > > > then that would be sufficient to achieve our primary
> >> > > > > > > objective
> >> > > > for the
> >> > > > > release.
> >> > > > > > > Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the
> >> > > > > > > query API, my personal opinion would be to release with the
> >> > > > > > > SOAP API intact. If we run into issues making it work
> >> > > > > > > without the WSDL's, we'll need an alternative strategy to
> >> > > > > > > deal with the licensing / copyright issue for those files.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal
> >> > > > > > > that
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > > > > aim to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require
> >> > > > > > > testing effort, but I believe it's the right move long term.
> >> > > > > > > Assuming
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this deprecation step would
> >> > > > > > > be in
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > future release.
> >> > > > > > > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice
> >> > > > > > > in the
> >> > > > > > > 4.0 release notes that expresses our aim to convert from
> >> > > > > > > SOAP to
> >> > > > Query.
> >> > > > > > > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with
> >> > > > > > > that strategy.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings
> >> > > > > > > (attempting to remove the WSDL files).
> >> > > > > > > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the
> >> > > > > > > SOAP API intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
> >> > > > > > > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > SOAP
> >> > > > > > > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing
> >> > > > > > > required
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to
> >> > > > > > > make an informed decision about how to handle the situation.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > -chip
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor
> >> > > > > > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has
> >> > > > > > > > asked
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > > time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people
> >> > > > > > > decide that they don't want time-based releases after all,
> >> > > > > > > then we can start again with a new release plan.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked
> >> > > > > > > > the question
> >> > > > > > > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship
> >> > > > > > > as
> >> > > > soon
> >> > > > > > > as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four
> >> > > > > > > months (it will be five months on the current release plan)
> >> > > > > > > and we're already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't
> >> > > > > > > use Apache releases because they are crippled compared with
> >> Citrix's.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the
> >> > > > > > > > whip
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > make
> >> > > > > > > sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the
> >> > > > > > > group decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond,
> >> > > > > > > then that's a decision that's open to them.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Ewan.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > > > >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On
> >> > Behalf
> >> > > > > > Of
> >> > > > > > > >> Adrian Cole
> >> > > > > > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> >> > > > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I
> >> > > > > > > >> guess
> >> > > > we'll
> >> > > > > > > >> have
> >> > > > > > > to either
> >> > > > > > > >> convince you or deal with your decision.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> -A
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> >> > > > > > > >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be
> >> > > > > > > >> > code
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can
> >> > > > convince
> >> > > > > > > >> > me that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week
> >> > > > > > > >> > of
> >> > > > open
> >> > > > > > > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm
> >> > > > > > > >> > happy
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0
> >> > > > > > > >> > to be Query API only. If it can't be done in the next
> >> > > > > > > >> > two weeks
> >> > > > then
> >> > > > > > > >> > we're talking about slipping the
> >> > > > > > > >> release, and no-one wants that.
> >> > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > >> > Ewan.
> >> > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > > > >> > > From: Chip Childers
> >> > > > > > > >> > > [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> > > > > > > >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> >> > > > > > > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> > > > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >> > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> >> > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the
> >> > > > > > > >> > > > WSDL interface as well as the Query API.
> >> > > > > > > >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> >> > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with
> >> > > > > > > >> > > the
> >> > > > query
> >> > > > > API...
> >> > > > > > > >> > > which would then need testing.
> >> > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> >> > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > -chip
> >> > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> >> > > > > > > >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> >> > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > Just curious.
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > cloudbridge
> >> > > > was
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > rip
> >> > > > out
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > the
> >> > > > > > > SOAP
> >> > > > > > > >> interface?
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > the first version of
> >> > > > > > > >> > > something.
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > -A
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >> case, deprecate = rip
> >> > > > > > > >> > it out.
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of
> >> > > > > > > >> > > > general development
> >> > > > > > > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can
> >> > > > > > > >> > > we
> >> > > > get
> >> > > > > > > >> > > the query
> >> > > > > > > >> > API
> >> > > > > > > >> > > implemented in that time?
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is
> >> > > > looking
> >> > > > > > > >> > > > at what
> >> > > > > > > >> > happens
> >> > > > > > > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are
> >> > > > > > > >> > > already in the code base, so in theory we shouldn't
> >> > > > > > > >> > > need the WSDLs to
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > >> > > present
> >> > > > > > anyway.
> >> > > > > > > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> >> > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > > Ewan.
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Duncan Johnston-Watt
> >> CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation
> >>
> >> Twitter | @duncanjw
> >> Mobile | +44 777 190 2653
> >> Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt
> >> Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt
> >>
> >> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
> >> Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
> >>
> >> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only.
> >>If the
> >> message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
> >>the
> >> message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from
> >> your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
> >> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to
> >>this
> >> message after it was sent.
> >>
> >> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
> >> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
> >>onward
> >> transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will
> >>not
> >> adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by
> >> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient should
> >>carry
> >> out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
>
>
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Kelven Yang <ke...@citrix.com>.
A major advantage from SOAP/WSDL is that it is very easy to use tools to
generage client bindings for the API.
I support to do query API only, but it would be even nice if we can in the
mean time to provide official client bindings(based on query API) for some
of most popular languages like Java, .NET, python, ruby. This can
encourage the integration with CloudStack from various systems
Kelven
On 8/2/12 3:08 PM, "Kevin Kluge" <Ke...@citrix.com> wrote:
>I'd support doing query only. If a significant user need for SOAP
>emerges we can re-evaluate with clear data on the use case or tool that
>needs it.
>
>-kevin
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Duncan Johnston Watt
>> [mailto:duncan.johnstonwatt@cloudsoftcorp.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 1:05 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: Prachi Damle
>> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>>
>> Adrian/All
>>
>> +1 to focusing on Query API.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Duncan
>>
>> On 2 August 2012 22:01, Adrian Cole <fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Sure thing! I'll shoot instructions and results after lunch.
>> > On Aug 2, 2012 12:59 PM, "Ewan Mellor" <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > OK, then please share your test results on the Query API side, and
>> > > we can take a look. We've got two weeks to get it in good shape --
>> > > sounds like plenty to me!
>> > >
>> > > Ewan.
>> > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf
>> Of
>> > > > Adrian Cole
>> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:54 PM
>> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
>> > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > >
>> > > > Right, so here's the opportunity!
>> > > >
>> > > > Clear out 50 bugs and a legacy of code to support, and replace
>> > > > them with the bugs in Query which we would have to address anyway.
>> > > >
>> > > > I understand there's a time pressure, just that I'd personally
>> > > > rather not release cloudbridge in v4.0 at all vs establish a SOAP
>> > > > legacy to maintain.
>> > > >
>> > > > -A
>> > > > On Aug 2, 2012 12:36 PM, "Sudha Ponnaganti"
>> > > > <su...@citrix.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > EC2 SOAP API testing has been done.
>> > > > > Here are test results :
>> > > > > http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/EC2+API+support+-
>> > > > +Test+Execution
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Two test cycles are done. Second cycle is done to cover failed
>> > > > > and
>> > > > blocked
>> > > > > test cases from first run
>> > > > > Total test cases run 250+
>> > > > > Total Passed 200 +
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Defects can be found in JIRA
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks
>> > > > > /Sudha
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com]
>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:57 AM
>> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
>> > > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The only metric that we have (to my knowledge) is that the Query
>> > > > > API
>> > > > was
>> > > > > broken for a long time (a problem with the signature-checking
>> > > > > code,
>> > > > so
>> > > > > nothing worked at all). So the SOAP API is the one that's had
>> > > > > all
>> > > > the love
>> > > > > from us. If you have test results, then that's far better.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ewan.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On
>> Behalf
>> > > > > > Of Adrian Cole
>> > > > > > Sent: 02 August 2012 10:29
>> > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
>> > > > > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API?
>> Ex.
>> > > > > > Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with
>> > > > > > subjective quality assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell
>> > > > > > that with a test suite I can run to show objectively the
>>quality of the
>> SOAP API.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact
>> > > > > > in jclouds we are already doing this for greenqloud. There
>> > > > > > are a
>> > > > couple
>> > > > > > glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -A
>> > > > > > On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers"
>> > > > <ch...@sungard.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ewan,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone
>> > > > > > > around
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > release process. We have all agreed that getting to a
>>"legal"
>> > > > > > > release is the priority, and we also agreed to target a
>> > > > > > > time-
>> > > > bound
>> > > > > > > release model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the
>> > > > > > > one to "crack the wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to
>> > > > > > > look at how
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > rotate that around the community for future releases, so
>> > > > > > > that everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat...
>> > > > > > > ;-)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first
>> > > > > > > release, I think we need to compromise a bit here. If
>> > > > > > > Prachi can get everything working without the WSDL files
>> > > > > > > being in the source
>> > > > tree,
>> > > > > > > then that would be sufficient to achieve our primary
>> > > > > > > objective
>> > > > for the
>> > > > > release.
>> > > > > > > Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the
>> > > > > > > query API, my personal opinion would be to release with the
>> > > > > > > SOAP API intact. If we run into issues making it work
>> > > > > > > without the WSDL's, we'll need an alternative strategy to
>> > > > > > > deal with the licensing / copyright issue for those files.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > we
>> > > > > > > aim to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require
>> > > > > > > testing effort, but I believe it's the right move long term.
>> > > > > > > Assuming
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this deprecation step would
>> > > > > > > be in
>> > > > a
>> > > > > future release.
>> > > > > > > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice
>> > > > > > > in the
>> > > > > > > 4.0 release notes that expresses our aim to convert from
>> > > > > > > SOAP to
>> > > > Query.
>> > > > > > > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with
>> > > > > > > that strategy.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings
>> > > > > > > (attempting to remove the WSDL files).
>> > > > > > > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the
>> > > > > > > SOAP API intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
>> > > > > > > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > SOAP
>> > > > > > > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing
>> > > > > > > required
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to
>> > > > > > > make an informed decision about how to handle the situation.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -chip
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor
>> > > > > > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has
>> > > > > > > > asked
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > > time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people
>> > > > > > > decide that they don't want time-based releases after all,
>> > > > > > > then we can start again with a new release plan.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked
>> > > > > > > > the question
>> > > > > > > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship
>> > > > > > > as
>> > > > soon
>> > > > > > > as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four
>> > > > > > > months (it will be five months on the current release plan)
>> > > > > > > and we're already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't
>> > > > > > > use Apache releases because they are crippled compared with
>> Citrix's.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the
>> > > > > > > > whip
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > make
>> > > > > > > sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the
>> > > > > > > group decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond,
>> > > > > > > then that's a decision that's open to them.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Ewan.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On
>> > Behalf
>> > > > > > Of
>> > > > > > > >> Adrian Cole
>> > > > > > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
>> > > > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > > > >> Cc: Prachi Damle
>> > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I
>> > > > > > > >> guess
>> > > > we'll
>> > > > > > > >> have
>> > > > > > > to either
>> > > > > > > >> convince you or deal with your decision.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> -A
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
>> > > > > > > >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be
>> > > > > > > >> > code
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can
>> > > > convince
>> > > > > > > >> > me that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week
>> > > > > > > >> > of
>> > > > open
>> > > > > > > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm
>> > > > > > > >> > happy
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0
>> > > > > > > >> > to be Query API only. If it can't be done in the next
>> > > > > > > >> > two weeks
>> > > > then
>> > > > > > > >> > we're talking about slipping the
>> > > > > > > >> release, and no-one wants that.
>> > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > Ewan.
>> > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > >> > > From: Chip Childers
>> > > > > > > >> > > [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> > > > > > > >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
>> > > > > > > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > > > >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
>> > > > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the
>> > > > > > > >> > > > WSDL interface as well as the Query API.
>> > > > > > > >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with
>> > > > > > > >> > > the
>> > > > query
>> > > > > API...
>> > > > > > > >> > > which would then need testing.
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > -chip
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
>> > > > > > > >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
>> > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > > > > > >> > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > Just curious.
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > cloudbridge
>> > > > was
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > rip
>> > > > out
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > the
>> > > > > > > SOAP
>> > > > > > > >> interface?
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > the first version of
>> > > > > > > >> > > something.
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> > -A
>> > > > > > > >> > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this
>> > > > > > > >> > > >> case, deprecate = rip
>> > > > > > > >> > it out.
>> > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of
>> > > > > > > >> > > > general development
>> > > > > > > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can
>> > > > > > > >> > > we
>> > > > get
>> > > > > > > >> > > the query
>> > > > > > > >> > API
>> > > > > > > >> > > implemented in that time?
>> > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is
>> > > > looking
>> > > > > > > >> > > > at what
>> > > > > > > >> > happens
>> > > > > > > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are
>> > > > > > > >> > > already in the code base, so in theory we shouldn't
>> > > > > > > >> > > need the WSDLs to
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > >> > > present
>> > > > > > anyway.
>> > > > > > > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
>> > > > > > > >> > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > > Ewan.
>> > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > >> > > >
>> > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Duncan Johnston-Watt
>> CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation
>>
>> Twitter | @duncanjw
>> Mobile | +44 777 190 2653
>> Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt
>> Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt
>>
>> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
>> Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
>>
>> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only.
>>If the
>> message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
>>the
>> message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from
>> your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
>> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to
>>this
>> message after it was sent.
>>
>> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
>> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
>>onward
>> transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will
>>not
>> adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by
>> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient should
>>carry
>> out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Kevin Kluge <Ke...@citrix.com>.
I'd support doing query only. If a significant user need for SOAP emerges we can re-evaluate with clear data on the use case or tool that needs it.
-kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duncan Johnston Watt
> [mailto:duncan.johnstonwatt@cloudsoftcorp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 1:05 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Prachi Damle
> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>
> Adrian/All
>
> +1 to focusing on Query API.
>
> Best
>
> Duncan
>
> On 2 August 2012 22:01, Adrian Cole <fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure thing! I'll shoot instructions and results after lunch.
> > On Aug 2, 2012 12:59 PM, "Ewan Mellor" <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > OK, then please share your test results on the Query API side, and
> > > we can take a look. We've got two weeks to get it in good shape --
> > > sounds like plenty to me!
> > >
> > > Ewan.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > > > Adrian Cole
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:54 PM
> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > >
> > > > Right, so here's the opportunity!
> > > >
> > > > Clear out 50 bugs and a legacy of code to support, and replace
> > > > them with the bugs in Query which we would have to address anyway.
> > > >
> > > > I understand there's a time pressure, just that I'd personally
> > > > rather not release cloudbridge in v4.0 at all vs establish a SOAP
> > > > legacy to maintain.
> > > >
> > > > -A
> > > > On Aug 2, 2012 12:36 PM, "Sudha Ponnaganti"
> > > > <su...@citrix.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > EC2 SOAP API testing has been done.
> > > > > Here are test results :
> > > > > http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/EC2+API+support+-
> > > > +Test+Execution
> > > > >
> > > > > Two test cycles are done. Second cycle is done to cover failed
> > > > > and
> > > > blocked
> > > > > test cases from first run
> > > > > Total test cases run 250+
> > > > > Total Passed 200 +
> > > > >
> > > > > Defects can be found in JIRA
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > /Sudha
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:57 AM
> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > >
> > > > > The only metric that we have (to my knowledge) is that the Query
> > > > > API
> > > > was
> > > > > broken for a long time (a problem with the signature-checking
> > > > > code,
> > > > so
> > > > > nothing worked at all). So the SOAP API is the one that's had
> > > > > all
> > > > the love
> > > > > from us. If you have test results, then that's far better.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ewan.
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On
> Behalf
> > > > > > Of Adrian Cole
> > > > > > Sent: 02 August 2012 10:29
> > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API? Ex.
> > > > > > Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with
> > > > > > subjective quality assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell
> > > > > > that with a test suite I can run to show objectively the quality of the
> SOAP API.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact
> > > > > > in jclouds we are already doing this for greenqloud. There
> > > > > > are a
> > > > couple
> > > > > > glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -A
> > > > > > On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers"
> > > > <ch...@sungard.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ewan,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone
> > > > > > > around
> > > > the
> > > > > > > release process. We have all agreed that getting to a "legal"
> > > > > > > release is the priority, and we also agreed to target a
> > > > > > > time-
> > > > bound
> > > > > > > release model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the
> > > > > > > one to "crack the wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to
> > > > > > > look at how
> > > > to
> > > > > > > rotate that around the community for future releases, so
> > > > > > > that everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat...
> > > > > > > ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first
> > > > > > > release, I think we need to compromise a bit here. If
> > > > > > > Prachi can get everything working without the WSDL files
> > > > > > > being in the source
> > > > tree,
> > > > > > > then that would be sufficient to achieve our primary
> > > > > > > objective
> > > > for the
> > > > > release.
> > > > > > > Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the
> > > > > > > query API, my personal opinion would be to release with the
> > > > > > > SOAP API intact. If we run into issues making it work
> > > > > > > without the WSDL's, we'll need an alternative strategy to
> > > > > > > deal with the licensing / copyright issue for those files.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal
> > > > > > > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > > aim to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require
> > > > > > > testing effort, but I believe it's the right move long term.
> > > > > > > Assuming
> > > > the
> > > > > > > WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this deprecation step would
> > > > > > > be in
> > > > a
> > > > > future release.
> > > > > > > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice
> > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > 4.0 release notes that expresses our aim to convert from
> > > > > > > SOAP to
> > > > Query.
> > > > > > > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with
> > > > > > > that strategy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings
> > > > > > > (attempting to remove the WSDL files).
> > > > > > > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the
> > > > > > > SOAP API intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
> > > > > > > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove
> > > > > > > the
> > > > SOAP
> > > > > > > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing
> > > > > > > required
> > > > to
> > > > > > > assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to
> > > > > > > make an informed decision about how to handle the situation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -chip
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > > > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has
> > > > > > > > asked
> > > > for
> > > > > > > time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people
> > > > > > > decide that they don't want time-based releases after all,
> > > > > > > then we can start again with a new release plan.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked
> > > > > > > > the question
> > > > > > > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship
> > > > > > > as
> > > > soon
> > > > > > > as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four
> > > > > > > months (it will be five months on the current release plan)
> > > > > > > and we're already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't
> > > > > > > use Apache releases because they are crippled compared with
> Citrix's.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the
> > > > > > > > whip
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the
> > > > > > > group decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond,
> > > > > > > then that's a decision that's open to them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ewan.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On
> > Behalf
> > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > >> Adrian Cole
> > > > > > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> > > > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I
> > > > > > > >> guess
> > > > we'll
> > > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > to either
> > > > > > > >> convince you or deal with your decision.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> -A
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > > > > >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be
> > > > > > > >> > code
> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can
> > > > convince
> > > > > > > >> > me that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > open
> > > > > > > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm
> > > > > > > >> > happy
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0
> > > > > > > >> > to be Query API only. If it can't be done in the next
> > > > > > > >> > two weeks
> > > > then
> > > > > > > >> > we're talking about slipping the
> > > > > > > >> release, and no-one wants that.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Ewan.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > >> > > From: Chip Childers
> > > > > > > >> > > [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > > > > >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> > > > > > > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the
> > > > > > > >> > > > WSDL interface as well as the Query API.
> > > > > > > >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > query
> > > > > API...
> > > > > > > >> > > which would then need testing.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > -chip
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > > > > >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers
> > > > > > > >> > > >> [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > > > > >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> > > > > > > >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> > > > > > > >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > Just curious.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > cloudbridge
> > > > was
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > rip
> > > > out
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > the
> > > > > > > SOAP
> > > > > > > >> interface?
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > the first version of
> > > > > > > >> > > something.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > -A
> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this
> > > > > > > >> > > >> case, deprecate = rip
> > > > > > > >> > it out.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of
> > > > > > > >> > > > general development
> > > > > > > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can
> > > > > > > >> > > we
> > > > get
> > > > > > > >> > > the query
> > > > > > > >> > API
> > > > > > > >> > > implemented in that time?
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is
> > > > looking
> > > > > > > >> > > > at what
> > > > > > > >> > happens
> > > > > > > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are
> > > > > > > >> > > already in the code base, so in theory we shouldn't
> > > > > > > >> > > need the WSDLs to
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > present
> > > > > > anyway.
> > > > > > > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Ewan.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Duncan Johnston-Watt
> CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation
>
> Twitter | @duncanjw
> Mobile | +44 777 190 2653
> Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt
> Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt
>
> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
> Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
>
> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If the
> message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the
> message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from
> your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
> message after it was sent.
>
> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward
> transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not
> adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by
> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient should carry
> out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
I'm starting work on this here.
http://code.google.com/p/jclouds/issues/detail?id=1056
Note it would be easiest if we know of a public endpoint or easy-to-repeat
install of cloudstack+cloudbridge (on master). For example, I know
Deltacloud provide a public endpoint for testing, refreshed on some
interval.
Current failures related to greenqloud are here, but since the focus is
Apache CloudStack vs what was formerly released, I think it is more
relevant tracking the above issue instead:
http://code.google.com/p/jclouds/issues/detail?id=972
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Duncan Johnston Watt <
duncan.johnstonwatt@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
> Adrian/All
>
> +1 to focusing on Query API.
>
> Best
>
> Duncan
>
> On 2 August 2012 22:01, Adrian Cole <fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sure thing! I'll shoot instructions and results after lunch.
> > On Aug 2, 2012 12:59 PM, "Ewan Mellor" <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > OK, then please share your test results on the Query API side, and we
> can
> > > take a look. We've got two weeks to get it in good shape -- sounds
> like
> > > plenty to me!
> > >
> > > Ewan.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > > > Adrian Cole
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:54 PM
> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > >
> > > > Right, so here's the opportunity!
> > > >
> > > > Clear out 50 bugs and a legacy of code to support, and replace them
> > > > with
> > > > the bugs in Query which we would have to address anyway.
> > > >
> > > > I understand there's a time pressure, just that I'd personally rather
> > > > not
> > > > release cloudbridge in v4.0 at all vs establish a SOAP legacy to
> > > > maintain.
> > > >
> > > > -A
> > > > On Aug 2, 2012 12:36 PM, "Sudha Ponnaganti"
> > > > <su...@citrix.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > EC2 SOAP API testing has been done.
> > > > > Here are test results :
> > > > > http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/EC2+API+support+-
> > > > +Test+Execution
> > > > >
> > > > > Two test cycles are done. Second cycle is done to cover failed and
> > > > blocked
> > > > > test cases from first run
> > > > > Total test cases run 250+
> > > > > Total Passed 200 +
> > > > >
> > > > > Defects can be found in JIRA
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > /Sudha
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:57 AM
> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > >
> > > > > The only metric that we have (to my knowledge) is that the Query
> API
> > > > was
> > > > > broken for a long time (a problem with the signature-checking code,
> > > > so
> > > > > nothing worked at all). So the SOAP API is the one that's had all
> > > > the love
> > > > > from us. If you have test results, then that's far better.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ewan.
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > > > > > Adrian Cole
> > > > > > Sent: 02 August 2012 10:29
> > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API?
> Ex.
> > > > > > Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with subjective
> > > > > > quality assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell that with a test
> > > > > > suite I can run to show objectively the quality of the SOAP API.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact in
> > > > > > jclouds we are already doing this for greenqloud. There are a
> > > > couple
> > > > > > glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -A
> > > > > > On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers"
> > > > <ch...@sungard.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ewan,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around
> > > > the
> > > > > > > release process. We have all agreed that getting to a "legal"
> > > > > > > release is the priority, and we also agreed to target a time-
> > > > bound
> > > > > > > release model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the one
> to
> > > > > > > "crack the wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to look at
> how
> > > > to
> > > > > > > rotate that around the community for future releases, so that
> > > > > > > everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I
> > > > > > > think we need to compromise a bit here. If Prachi can get
> > > > > > > everything working without the WSDL files being in the source
> > > > tree,
> > > > > > > then that would be sufficient to achieve our primary objective
> > > > for the
> > > > > release.
> > > > > > > Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the
> query
> > > > > > > API, my personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API
> > > > > > > intact. If we run into issues making it work without the
> WSDL's,
> > > > > > > we'll need an alternative strategy to deal with the licensing /
> > > > > > > copyright issue for those files.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that
> > > > we
> > > > > > > aim to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require testing
> > > > > > > effort, but I believe it's the right move long term. Assuming
> > > > the
> > > > > > > WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this deprecation step would be
> in
> > > > a
> > > > > future release.
> > > > > > > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in
> the
> > > > > > > 4.0 release notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP
> to
> > > > Query.
> > > > > > > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with
> that
> > > > > > > strategy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting
> to
> > > > > > > remove the WSDL files).
> > > > > > > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the
> SOAP
> > > > > > > API intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
> > > > > > > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the
> > > > SOAP
> > > > > > > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing required
> > > > to
> > > > > > > assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to make
> an
> > > > > > > informed decision about how to handle the situation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -chip
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > > > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has asked
> > > > for
> > > > > > > time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people
> decide
> > > > > > > that they don't want time-based releases after all, then we can
> > > > > > > start again with a new release plan.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked
> the
> > > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as
> > > > soon
> > > > > > > as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four
> months
> > > > > > > (it will be five months on the current release plan) and we're
> > > > > > > already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't use Apache
> > > > > > > releases because they are crippled compared with Citrix's.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the
> whip
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the group
> > > > > > > decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond, then
> that's a
> > > > > > > decision that's open to them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ewan.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On
> > Behalf
> > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > >> Adrian Cole
> > > > > > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> > > > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess
> > > > we'll
> > > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > to either
> > > > > > > >> convince you or deal with your decision.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> -A
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > > > > >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code
> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can
> > > > convince
> > > > > > > >> > me that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of
> > > > open
> > > > > > > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm
> happy
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to
> be
> > > > > > > >> > Query API only. If it can't be done in the next two weeks
> > > > then
> > > > > > > >> > we're talking about slipping the
> > > > > > > >> release, and no-one wants that.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Ewan.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > > > > >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> > > > > > > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL
> > > > > > > >> > > > interface as well as the Query API.
> > > > > > > >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the
> > > > query
> > > > > API...
> > > > > > > >> > > which would then need testing.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > -chip
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > > > > >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:
> chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > > > > >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> > > > > > > >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> > > > > > > >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > Just curious.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and
> cloudbridge
> > > > was
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip
> > > > out
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > the
> > > > > > > SOAP
> > > > > > > >> interface?
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > first version of
> > > > > > > >> > > something.
> > > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > -A
> > > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case,
> > > > > > > >> > > >> deprecate = rip
> > > > > > > >> > it out.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of
> general
> > > > > > > >> > > > development
> > > > > > > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we
> > > > get
> > > > > > > >> > > the query
> > > > > > > >> > API
> > > > > > > >> > > implemented in that time?
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is
> > > > looking
> > > > > > > >> > > > at what
> > > > > > > >> > happens
> > > > > > > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already
> in
> > > > > > > >> > > the code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs
> to
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > present
> > > > > > anyway.
> > > > > > > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Ewan.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Duncan Johnston-Watt
> CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation
>
> Twitter | @duncanjw
> Mobile | +44 777 190 2653
> Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt
> Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt
>
> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
> Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
>
> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
> the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
> the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message
> from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
> message after it was sent.
>
> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
> onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
> will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
> accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient
> should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
>
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Duncan Johnston Watt <du...@cloudsoftcorp.com>.
Adrian/All
+1 to focusing on Query API.
Best
Duncan
On 2 August 2012 22:01, Adrian Cole <fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure thing! I'll shoot instructions and results after lunch.
> On Aug 2, 2012 12:59 PM, "Ewan Mellor" <Ew...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > OK, then please share your test results on the Query API side, and we can
> > take a look. We've got two weeks to get it in good shape -- sounds like
> > plenty to me!
> >
> > Ewan.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Adrian Cole
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:54 PM
> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >
> > > Right, so here's the opportunity!
> > >
> > > Clear out 50 bugs and a legacy of code to support, and replace them
> > > with
> > > the bugs in Query which we would have to address anyway.
> > >
> > > I understand there's a time pressure, just that I'd personally rather
> > > not
> > > release cloudbridge in v4.0 at all vs establish a SOAP legacy to
> > > maintain.
> > >
> > > -A
> > > On Aug 2, 2012 12:36 PM, "Sudha Ponnaganti"
> > > <su...@citrix.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > EC2 SOAP API testing has been done.
> > > > Here are test results :
> > > > http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/EC2+API+support+-
> > > +Test+Execution
> > > >
> > > > Two test cycles are done. Second cycle is done to cover failed and
> > > blocked
> > > > test cases from first run
> > > > Total test cases run 250+
> > > > Total Passed 200 +
> > > >
> > > > Defects can be found in JIRA
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > /Sudha
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:57 AM
> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > >
> > > > The only metric that we have (to my knowledge) is that the Query API
> > > was
> > > > broken for a long time (a problem with the signature-checking code,
> > > so
> > > > nothing worked at all). So the SOAP API is the one that's had all
> > > the love
> > > > from us. If you have test results, then that's far better.
> > > >
> > > > Ewan.
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > > > > Adrian Cole
> > > > > Sent: 02 August 2012 10:29
> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API? Ex.
> > > > > Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
> > > > >
> > > > > Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with subjective
> > > > > quality assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell that with a test
> > > > > suite I can run to show objectively the quality of the SOAP API.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact in
> > > > > jclouds we are already doing this for greenqloud. There are a
> > > couple
> > > > > glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted.
> > > > >
> > > > > -A
> > > > > On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers"
> > > <ch...@sungard.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ewan,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around
> > > the
> > > > > > release process. We have all agreed that getting to a "legal"
> > > > > > release is the priority, and we also agreed to target a time-
> > > bound
> > > > > > release model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the one to
> > > > > > "crack the wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to look at how
> > > to
> > > > > > rotate that around the community for future releases, so that
> > > > > > everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I
> > > > > > think we need to compromise a bit here. If Prachi can get
> > > > > > everything working without the WSDL files being in the source
> > > tree,
> > > > > > then that would be sufficient to achieve our primary objective
> > > for the
> > > > release.
> > > > > > Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the query
> > > > > > API, my personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API
> > > > > > intact. If we run into issues making it work without the WSDL's,
> > > > > > we'll need an alternative strategy to deal with the licensing /
> > > > > > copyright issue for those files.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that
> > > we
> > > > > > aim to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require testing
> > > > > > effort, but I believe it's the right move long term. Assuming
> > > the
> > > > > > WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this deprecation step would be in
> > > a
> > > > future release.
> > > > > > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in the
> > > > > > 4.0 release notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP to
> > > Query.
> > > > > > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with that
> > > > > > strategy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting to
> > > > > > remove the WSDL files).
> > > > > > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the SOAP
> > > > > > API intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
> > > > > > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the
> > > SOAP
> > > > > > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing required
> > > to
> > > > > > assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to make an
> > > > > > informed decision about how to handle the situation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -chip
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has asked
> > > for
> > > > > > time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people decide
> > > > > > that they don't want time-based releases after all, then we can
> > > > > > start again with a new release plan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked the
> > > > > > > question
> > > > > > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as
> > > soon
> > > > > > as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months
> > > > > > (it will be five months on the current release plan) and we're
> > > > > > already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't use Apache
> > > > > > releases because they are crippled compared with Citrix's.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the whip
> > > to
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the group
> > > > > > decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond, then that's a
> > > > > > decision that's open to them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ewan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On
> Behalf
> > > > > Of
> > > > > > >> Adrian Cole
> > > > > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> > > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess
> > > we'll
> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > to either
> > > > > > >> convince you or deal with your decision.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -A
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > > > >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code
> > > for
> > > > > > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can
> > > convince
> > > > > > >> > me that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of
> > > open
> > > > > > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy
> > > to
> > > > > > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be
> > > > > > >> > Query API only. If it can't be done in the next two weeks
> > > then
> > > > > > >> > we're talking about slipping the
> > > > > > >> release, and no-one wants that.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Ewan.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > > > >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> > > > > > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL
> > > > > > >> > > > interface as well as the Query API.
> > > > > > >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the
> > > query
> > > > API...
> > > > > > >> > > which would then need testing.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > -chip
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > > > >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > > > >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> > > > > > >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> > > > > > >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > >> > Just curious.
> > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge
> > > was
> > > > > > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip
> > > out
> > > > > > >> > > >> > the
> > > > > > SOAP
> > > > > > >> interface?
> > > > > > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the
> > > > > > >> > > >> > first version of
> > > > > > >> > > something.
> > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > >> > -A
> > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case,
> > > > > > >> > > >> deprecate = rip
> > > > > > >> > it out.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general
> > > > > > >> > > > development
> > > > > > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we
> > > get
> > > > > > >> > > the query
> > > > > > >> > API
> > > > > > >> > > implemented in that time?
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is
> > > looking
> > > > > > >> > > > at what
> > > > > > >> > happens
> > > > > > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in
> > > > > > >> > > the code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to
> > > be
> > > > > > >> > > present
> > > > > anyway.
> > > > > > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Ewan.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
>
--
Duncan Johnston-Watt
CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation
Twitter | @duncanjw
Mobile | +44 777 190 2653
Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt
Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt
Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message
from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
message after it was sent.
Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient
should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Adrian Cole <fe...@gmail.com>.
Sure thing! I'll shoot instructions and results after lunch.
On Aug 2, 2012 12:59 PM, "Ewan Mellor" <Ew...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> OK, then please share your test results on the Query API side, and we can
> take a look. We've got two weeks to get it in good shape -- sounds like
> plenty to me!
>
> Ewan.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Adrian Cole
> > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:54 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >
> > Right, so here's the opportunity!
> >
> > Clear out 50 bugs and a legacy of code to support, and replace them
> > with
> > the bugs in Query which we would have to address anyway.
> >
> > I understand there's a time pressure, just that I'd personally rather
> > not
> > release cloudbridge in v4.0 at all vs establish a SOAP legacy to
> > maintain.
> >
> > -A
> > On Aug 2, 2012 12:36 PM, "Sudha Ponnaganti"
> > <su...@citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > EC2 SOAP API testing has been done.
> > > Here are test results :
> > > http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/EC2+API+support+-
> > +Test+Execution
> > >
> > > Two test cycles are done. Second cycle is done to cover failed and
> > blocked
> > > test cases from first run
> > > Total test cases run 250+
> > > Total Passed 200 +
> > >
> > > Defects can be found in JIRA
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > /Sudha
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:57 AM
> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >
> > > The only metric that we have (to my knowledge) is that the Query API
> > was
> > > broken for a long time (a problem with the signature-checking code,
> > so
> > > nothing worked at all). So the SOAP API is the one that's had all
> > the love
> > > from us. If you have test results, then that's far better.
> > >
> > > Ewan.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > > > Adrian Cole
> > > > Sent: 02 August 2012 10:29
> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > >
> > > > Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API? Ex.
> > > > Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
> > > >
> > > > Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with subjective
> > > > quality assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell that with a test
> > > > suite I can run to show objectively the quality of the SOAP API.
> > > >
> > > > I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact in
> > > > jclouds we are already doing this for greenqloud. There are a
> > couple
> > > > glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted.
> > > >
> > > > -A
> > > > On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers"
> > <ch...@sungard.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ewan,
> > > > >
> > > > > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around
> > the
> > > > > release process. We have all agreed that getting to a "legal"
> > > > > release is the priority, and we also agreed to target a time-
> > bound
> > > > > release model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the one to
> > > > > "crack the wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to look at how
> > to
> > > > > rotate that around the community for future releases, so that
> > > > > everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I
> > > > > think we need to compromise a bit here. If Prachi can get
> > > > > everything working without the WSDL files being in the source
> > tree,
> > > > > then that would be sufficient to achieve our primary objective
> > for the
> > > release.
> > > > > Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the query
> > > > > API, my personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API
> > > > > intact. If we run into issues making it work without the WSDL's,
> > > > > we'll need an alternative strategy to deal with the licensing /
> > > > > copyright issue for those files.
> > > > >
> > > > > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that
> > we
> > > > > aim to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require testing
> > > > > effort, but I believe it's the right move long term. Assuming
> > the
> > > > > WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this deprecation step would be in
> > a
> > > future release.
> > > > > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in the
> > > > > 4.0 release notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP to
> > Query.
> > > > > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with that
> > > > > strategy.
> > > > >
> > > > > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting to
> > > > > remove the WSDL files).
> > > > > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the SOAP
> > > > > API intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
> > > > > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the
> > SOAP
> > > > > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing required
> > to
> > > > > assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to make an
> > > > > informed decision about how to handle the situation.
> > > > >
> > > > > -chip
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has asked
> > for
> > > > > time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people decide
> > > > > that they don't want time-based releases after all, then we can
> > > > > start again with a new release plan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked the
> > > > > > question
> > > > > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as
> > soon
> > > > > as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months
> > > > > (it will be five months on the current release plan) and we're
> > > > > already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't use Apache
> > > > > releases because they are crippled compared with Citrix's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the whip
> > to
> > > > > > make
> > > > > sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the group
> > > > > decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond, then that's a
> > > > > decision that's open to them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ewan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf
> > > > Of
> > > > > >> Adrian Cole
> > > > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess
> > we'll
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > to either
> > > > > >> convince you or deal with your decision.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -A
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > > >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code
> > for
> > > > > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can
> > convince
> > > > > >> > me that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of
> > open
> > > > > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy
> > to
> > > > > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be
> > > > > >> > Query API only. If it can't be done in the next two weeks
> > then
> > > > > >> > we're talking about slipping the
> > > > > >> release, and no-one wants that.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Ewan.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > > >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> > > > > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL
> > > > > >> > > > interface as well as the Query API.
> > > > > >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the
> > query
> > > API...
> > > > > >> > > which would then need testing.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > -chip
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > > >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > > >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> > > > > >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> > > > > >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >> > Just curious.
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge
> > was
> > > > > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip
> > out
> > > > > >> > > >> > the
> > > > > SOAP
> > > > > >> interface?
> > > > > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the
> > > > > >> > > >> > first version of
> > > > > >> > > something.
> > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > >> > -A
> > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case,
> > > > > >> > > >> deprecate = rip
> > > > > >> > it out.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general
> > > > > >> > > > development
> > > > > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we
> > get
> > > > > >> > > the query
> > > > > >> > API
> > > > > >> > > implemented in that time?
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is
> > looking
> > > > > >> > > > at what
> > > > > >> > happens
> > > > > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in
> > > > > >> > > the code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to
> > be
> > > > > >> > > present
> > > > anyway.
> > > > > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Ewan.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>.
OK, then please share your test results on the Query API side, and we can take a look. We've got two weeks to get it in good shape -- sounds like plenty to me!
Ewan.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Adrian Cole
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:54 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Prachi Damle
> Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>
> Right, so here's the opportunity!
>
> Clear out 50 bugs and a legacy of code to support, and replace them
> with
> the bugs in Query which we would have to address anyway.
>
> I understand there's a time pressure, just that I'd personally rather
> not
> release cloudbridge in v4.0 at all vs establish a SOAP legacy to
> maintain.
>
> -A
> On Aug 2, 2012 12:36 PM, "Sudha Ponnaganti"
> <su...@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > EC2 SOAP API testing has been done.
> > Here are test results :
> > http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/EC2+API+support+-
> +Test+Execution
> >
> > Two test cycles are done. Second cycle is done to cover failed and
> blocked
> > test cases from first run
> > Total test cases run 250+
> > Total Passed 200 +
> >
> > Defects can be found in JIRA
> >
> > Thanks
> > /Sudha
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:57 AM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >
> > The only metric that we have (to my knowledge) is that the Query API
> was
> > broken for a long time (a problem with the signature-checking code,
> so
> > nothing worked at all). So the SOAP API is the one that's had all
> the love
> > from us. If you have test results, then that's far better.
> >
> > Ewan.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Adrian Cole
> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 10:29
> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >
> > > Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API? Ex.
> > > Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
> > >
> > > Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with subjective
> > > quality assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell that with a test
> > > suite I can run to show objectively the quality of the SOAP API.
> > >
> > > I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact in
> > > jclouds we are already doing this for greenqloud. There are a
> couple
> > > glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted.
> > >
> > > -A
> > > On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers"
> <ch...@sungard.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ewan,
> > > >
> > > > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around
> the
> > > > release process. We have all agreed that getting to a "legal"
> > > > release is the priority, and we also agreed to target a time-
> bound
> > > > release model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the one to
> > > > "crack the wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to look at how
> to
> > > > rotate that around the community for future releases, so that
> > > > everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
> > > >
> > > > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I
> > > > think we need to compromise a bit here. If Prachi can get
> > > > everything working without the WSDL files being in the source
> tree,
> > > > then that would be sufficient to achieve our primary objective
> for the
> > release.
> > > > Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the query
> > > > API, my personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API
> > > > intact. If we run into issues making it work without the WSDL's,
> > > > we'll need an alternative strategy to deal with the licensing /
> > > > copyright issue for those files.
> > > >
> > > > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that
> we
> > > > aim to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require testing
> > > > effort, but I believe it's the right move long term. Assuming
> the
> > > > WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this deprecation step would be in
> a
> > future release.
> > > > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in the
> > > > 4.0 release notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP to
> Query.
> > > > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with that
> > > > strategy.
> > > >
> > > > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
> > > >
> > > > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting to
> > > > remove the WSDL files).
> > > > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the SOAP
> > > > API intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
> > > > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the
> SOAP
> > > > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing required
> to
> > > > assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to make an
> > > > informed decision about how to handle the situation.
> > > >
> > > > -chip
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has asked
> for
> > > > time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people decide
> > > > that they don't want time-based releases after all, then we can
> > > > start again with a new release plan.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked the
> > > > > question
> > > > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as
> soon
> > > > as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months
> > > > (it will be five months on the current release plan) and we're
> > > > already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't use Apache
> > > > releases because they are crippled compared with Citrix's.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the whip
> to
> > > > > make
> > > > sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the group
> > > > decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond, then that's a
> > > > decision that's open to them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ewan.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf
> > > Of
> > > > >> Adrian Cole
> > > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess
> we'll
> > > > >> have
> > > > to either
> > > > >> convince you or deal with your decision.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -A
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code
> for
> > > > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can
> convince
> > > > >> > me that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of
> open
> > > > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy
> to
> > > > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be
> > > > >> > Query API only. If it can't be done in the next two weeks
> then
> > > > >> > we're talking about slipping the
> > > > >> release, and no-one wants that.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Ewan.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> > > > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > > >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL
> > > > >> > > > interface as well as the Query API.
> > > > >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the
> query
> > API...
> > > > >> > > which would then need testing.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > -chip
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > > >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > > >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> > > > >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> > > > >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > >> > Just curious.
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge
> was
> > > > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip
> out
> > > > >> > > >> > the
> > > > SOAP
> > > > >> interface?
> > > > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the
> > > > >> > > >> > first version of
> > > > >> > > something.
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > -A
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case,
> > > > >> > > >> deprecate = rip
> > > > >> > it out.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general
> > > > >> > > > development
> > > > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we
> get
> > > > >> > > the query
> > > > >> > API
> > > > >> > > implemented in that time?
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is
> looking
> > > > >> > > > at what
> > > > >> > happens
> > > > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in
> > > > >> > > the code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to
> be
> > > > >> > > present
> > > anyway.
> > > > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Ewan.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
Right, so here's the opportunity!
Clear out 50 bugs and a legacy of code to support, and replace them with
the bugs in Query which we would have to address anyway.
I understand there's a time pressure, just that I'd personally rather not
release cloudbridge in v4.0 at all vs establish a SOAP legacy to maintain.
-A
On Aug 2, 2012 12:36 PM, "Sudha Ponnaganti" <su...@citrix.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> EC2 SOAP API testing has been done.
> Here are test results :
> http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/EC2+API+support+-+Test+Execution
>
> Two test cycles are done. Second cycle is done to cover failed and blocked
> test cases from first run
> Total test cases run 250+
> Total Passed 200 +
>
> Defects can be found in JIRA
>
> Thanks
> /Sudha
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:57 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Prachi Damle
> Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>
> The only metric that we have (to my knowledge) is that the Query API was
> broken for a long time (a problem with the signature-checking code, so
> nothing worked at all). So the SOAP API is the one that's had all the love
> from us. If you have test results, then that's far better.
>
> Ewan.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Adrian Cole
> > Sent: 02 August 2012 10:29
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >
> > Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API? Ex.
> > Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
> >
> > Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with subjective
> > quality assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell that with a test
> > suite I can run to show objectively the quality of the SOAP API.
> >
> > I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact in
> > jclouds we are already doing this for greenqloud. There are a couple
> > glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted.
> >
> > -A
> > On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ewan,
> > >
> > > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around the
> > > release process. We have all agreed that getting to a "legal"
> > > release is the priority, and we also agreed to target a time-bound
> > > release model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the one to
> > > "crack the wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to look at how to
> > > rotate that around the community for future releases, so that
> > > everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
> > >
> > > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I
> > > think we need to compromise a bit here. If Prachi can get
> > > everything working without the WSDL files being in the source tree,
> > > then that would be sufficient to achieve our primary objective for the
> release.
> > > Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the query
> > > API, my personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API
> > > intact. If we run into issues making it work without the WSDL's,
> > > we'll need an alternative strategy to deal with the licensing /
> > > copyright issue for those files.
> > >
> > > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that we
> > > aim to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require testing
> > > effort, but I believe it's the right move long term. Assuming the
> > > WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this deprecation step would be in a
> future release.
> > > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in the
> > > 4.0 release notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP to Query.
> > > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with that
> > > strategy.
> > >
> > > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
> > >
> > > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting to
> > > remove the WSDL files).
> > > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the SOAP
> > > API intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
> > > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the SOAP
> > > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing required to
> > > assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to make an
> > > informed decision about how to handle the situation.
> > >
> > > -chip
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor
> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has asked for
> > > time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people decide
> > > that they don't want time-based releases after all, then we can
> > > start again with a new release plan.
> > > >
> > > > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked the
> > > > question
> > > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as soon
> > > as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months
> > > (it will be five months on the current release plan) and we're
> > > already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't use Apache
> > > releases because they are crippled compared with Citrix's.
> > > >
> > > > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the whip to
> > > > make
> > > sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the group
> > > decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond, then that's a
> > > decision that's open to them.
> > > >
> > > > Ewan.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf
> > Of
> > > >> Adrian Cole
> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > >>
> > > >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess we'll
> > > >> have
> > > to either
> > > >> convince you or deal with your decision.
> > > >>
> > > >> -A
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code for
> > > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can convince
> > > >> > me that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of open
> > > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy to
> > > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be
> > > >> > Query API only. If it can't be done in the next two weeks then
> > > >> > we're talking about slipping the
> > > >> release, and no-one wants that.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Ewan.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> > > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL
> > > >> > > > interface as well as the Query API.
> > > >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the query
> API...
> > > >> > > which would then need testing.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > -chip
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> > > >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> > > >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > Just curious.
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was
> > > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip out
> > > >> > > >> > the
> > > SOAP
> > > >> interface?
> > > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the
> > > >> > > >> > first version of
> > > >> > > something.
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > -A
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case,
> > > >> > > >> deprecate = rip
> > > >> > it out.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general
> > > >> > > > development
> > > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get
> > > >> > > the query
> > > >> > API
> > > >> > > implemented in that time?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking
> > > >> > > > at what
> > > >> > happens
> > > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in
> > > >> > > the code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be
> > > >> > > present
> > anyway.
> > > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Ewan.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> >
> > > >
> > >
>
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Sudha Ponnaganti <su...@citrix.com>.
Hi,
EC2 SOAP API testing has been done.
Here are test results : http://wiki.cloudstack.org/display/QA/EC2+API+support+-+Test+Execution
Two test cycles are done. Second cycle is done to cover failed and blocked test cases from first run
Total test cases run 250+
Total Passed 200 +
Defects can be found in JIRA
Thanks
/Sudha
-----Original Message-----
From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:Ewan.Mellor@eu.citrix.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:57 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Prachi Damle
Subject: RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
The only metric that we have (to my knowledge) is that the Query API was broken for a long time (a problem with the signature-checking code, so nothing worked at all). So the SOAP API is the one that's had all the love from us. If you have test results, then that's far better.
Ewan.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Adrian Cole
> Sent: 02 August 2012 10:29
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Prachi Damle
> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>
> Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API? Ex.
> Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
>
> Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with subjective
> quality assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell that with a test
> suite I can run to show objectively the quality of the SOAP API.
>
> I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact in
> jclouds we are already doing this for greenqloud. There are a couple
> glitches, but nothing that cannot be sorted.
>
> -A
> On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ewan,
> >
> > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around the
> > release process. We have all agreed that getting to a "legal"
> > release is the priority, and we also agreed to target a time-bound
> > release model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the one to
> > "crack the wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to look at how to
> > rotate that around the community for future releases, so that
> > everybody gets a chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
> >
> > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I
> > think we need to compromise a bit here. If Prachi can get
> > everything working without the WSDL files being in the source tree,
> > then that would be sufficient to achieve our primary objective for the release.
> > Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the query
> > API, my personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API
> > intact. If we run into issues making it work without the WSDL's,
> > we'll need an alternative strategy to deal with the licensing /
> > copyright issue for those files.
> >
> > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that we
> > aim to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require testing
> > effort, but I believe it's the right move long term. Assuming the
> > WSDL's can be removed cleanly, this deprecation step would be in a future release.
> > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in the
> > 4.0 release notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP to Query.
> > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with that
> > strategy.
> >
> > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
> >
> > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting to
> > remove the WSDL files).
> > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the SOAP
> > API intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
> > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the SOAP
> > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing required to
> > assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to make an
> > informed decision about how to handle the situation.
> >
> > -chip
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor
> > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has asked for
> > time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people decide
> > that they don't want time-based releases after all, then we can
> > start again with a new release plan.
> > >
> > > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked the
> > > question
> > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as soon
> > as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months
> > (it will be five months on the current release plan) and we're
> > already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't use Apache
> > releases because they are crippled compared with Citrix's.
> > >
> > > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the whip to
> > > make
> > sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the group
> > decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond, then that's a
> > decision that's open to them.
> > >
> > > Ewan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > >> Adrian Cole
> > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >>
> > >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess we'll
> > >> have
> > to either
> > >> convince you or deal with your decision.
> > >>
> > >> -A
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code for
> > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can convince
> > >> > me that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of open
> > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy to
> > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be
> > >> > Query API only. If it can't be done in the next two weeks then
> > >> > we're talking about slipping the
> > >> release, and no-one wants that.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ewan.
> > >> >
> > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL
> > >> > > > interface as well as the Query API.
> > >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the query API...
> > >> > > which would then need testing.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -chip
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> > >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> > >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > Just curious.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was
> > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip out
> > >> > > >> > the
> > SOAP
> > >> interface?
> > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the
> > >> > > >> > first version of
> > >> > > something.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > -A
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case,
> > >> > > >> deprecate = rip
> > >> > it out.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general
> > >> > > > development
> > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get
> > >> > > the query
> > >> > API
> > >> > > implemented in that time?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking
> > >> > > > at what
> > >> > happens
> > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in
> > >> > > the code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be
> > >> > > present
> anyway.
> > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Ewan.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >
> >
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>.
The only metric that we have (to my knowledge) is that the Query API was broken for a long time (a problem with the signature-checking code, so nothing worked at all). So the SOAP API is the one that's had all the love from us. If you have test results, then that's far better.
Ewan.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Adrian Cole
> Sent: 02 August 2012 10:29
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Prachi Damle
> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>
> Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API? Ex.
> Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
>
> Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with subjective quality
> assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell that with a test suite I can run to
> show objectively the quality of the SOAP API.
>
> I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact in jclouds we are
> already doing this for greenqloud. There are a couple glitches, but nothing
> that cannot be sorted.
>
> -A
> On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ewan,
> >
> > First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around the
> > release process. We have all agreed that getting to a "legal" release
> > is the priority, and we also agreed to target a time-bound release
> > model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the one to "crack the
> > wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to look at how to rotate that
> > around the community for future releases, so that everybody gets a
> > chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
> >
> > On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I think
> > we need to compromise a bit here. If Prachi can get everything
> > working without the WSDL files being in the source tree, then that
> > would be sufficient to achieve our primary objective for the release.
> > Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the query API,
> > my personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API intact. If
> > we run into issues making it work without the WSDL's, we'll need an
> > alternative strategy to deal with the licensing / copyright issue for
> > those files.
> >
> > Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that we aim
> > to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require testing effort, but
> > I believe it's the right move long term. Assuming the WSDL's can be
> > removed cleanly, this deprecation step would be in a future release.
> > However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in the 4.0
> > release notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP to Query.
> > This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with that
> > strategy.
> >
> > To summarize, can we agree on the following?
> >
> > 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting to
> > remove the WSDL files).
> > 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the SOAP API
> > intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
> > 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the SOAP
> > API for this release, and do some of the basic testing required to
> > assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to make an
> > informed decision about how to handle the situation.
> >
> > -chip
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor
> > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has asked for
> > time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people decide that
> > they don't want time-based releases after all, then we can start again
> > with a new release plan.
> > >
> > > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked the
> > > question
> > multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as soon
> > as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months (it
> > will be five months on the current release plan) and we're already
> > seeing articles saying that you shouldn't use Apache releases because
> > they are crippled compared with Citrix's.
> > >
> > > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the whip to
> > > make
> > sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the group
> > decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond, then that's a
> > decision that's open to them.
> > >
> > > Ewan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > >> Adrian Cole
> > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >>
> > >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess we'll
> > >> have
> > to either
> > >> convince you or deal with your decision.
> > >>
> > >> -A
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code for
> > >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can convince me
> > >> > that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of open
> > >> > development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy to
> > >> > take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be
> > >> > Query API only. If it can't be done in the next two weeks then
> > >> > we're talking about slipping the
> > >> release, and no-one wants that.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ewan.
> > >> >
> > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL
> > >> > > > interface as well as the Query API.
> > >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the query API...
> > >> > > which would then need testing.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > -chip
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> > >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> > >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > Just curious.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was
> > >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip out
> > >> > > >> > the
> > SOAP
> > >> interface?
> > >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first
> > >> > > >> > version of
> > >> > > something.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > -A
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case,
> > >> > > >> deprecate = rip
> > >> > it out.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general
> > >> > > > development
> > >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get
> > >> > > the query
> > >> > API
> > >> > > implemented in that time?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking at
> > >> > > > what
> > >> > happens
> > >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in the
> > >> > > code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be present
> anyway.
> > >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Ewan.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> >
> > >
> >
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
Do we have metrics for the relative strength of the SOAP API? Ex.
Integration or unit test coverage reports and suites?
Besides shipping the wrong feature, I take issue with subjective quality
assessments. Hopefully, you can dispell that with a test suite I can run
to show objectively the quality of the SOAP API.
I can automatically test the Query API right now, and in fact in jclouds we
are already doing this for greenqloud. There are a couple glitches, but
nothing that cannot be sorted.
-A
On Aug 2, 2012 10:12 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Ewan,
>
> First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around the
> release process. We have all agreed that getting to a "legal" release
> is the priority, and we also agreed to target a time-bound release
> model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the one to "crack the
> wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to look at how to rotate that
> around the community for future releases, so that everybody gets a
> chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
>
> On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I think
> we need to compromise a bit here. If Prachi can get everything
> working without the WSDL files being in the source tree, then that
> would be sufficient to achieve our primary objective for the release.
> Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the query API,
> my personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API intact. If
> we run into issues making it work without the WSDL's, we'll need an
> alternative strategy to deal with the licensing / copyright issue for
> those files.
>
> Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that we aim
> to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require testing effort, but
> I believe it's the right move long term. Assuming the WSDL's can be
> removed cleanly, this deprecation step would be in a future release.
> However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in the 4.0
> release notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP to Query.
> This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with that
> strategy.
>
> To summarize, can we agree on the following?
>
> 1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting to
> remove the WSDL files).
> 2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the SOAP API
> intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
> 3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the SOAP
> API for this release, and do some of the basic testing required to
> assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to make an
> informed decision about how to handle the situation.
>
> -chip
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> wrote:
> > No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has asked for
> time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people decide that they
> don't want time-based releases after all, then we can start again with a
> new release plan.
> >
> > That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked the question
> multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as soon as you
> can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months (it will be five
> months on the current release plan) and we're already seeing articles
> saying that you shouldn't use Apache releases because they are crippled
> compared with Citrix's.
> >
> > Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the whip to make
> sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the group decides
> that it wants to slip to October or beyond, then that's a decision that's
> open to them.
> >
> > Ewan.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> >> Adrian Cole
> >> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >>
> >> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess we'll have
> to either
> >> convince you or deal with your decision.
> >>
> >> -A
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> >> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> >>
> >> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code for
> >> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can convince me that
> >> > it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of open development, 1
> >> > week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy to take that step and
> >> > remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be Query API only. If it can't
> >> > be done in the next two weeks then we're talking about slipping the
> >> release, and no-one wants that.
> >> >
> >> > Ewan.
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> >> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >> > >
> >> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as
> >> > > > well as the Query API.
> >> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> >> > >
> >> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the query API...
> >> > > which would then need testing.
> >> > >
> >> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> >> > >
> >> > > -chip
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> >> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> >> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> >> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> >> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >> > Just curious.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was
> >> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip out the
> SOAP
> >> interface?
> >> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first
> >> > > >> > version of
> >> > > something.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > -A
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case, deprecate =
> >> > > >> rip
> >> > it out.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general
> >> > > > development
> >> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get the
> >> > > query
> >> > API
> >> > > implemented in that time?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking at what
> >> > happens
> >> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in the code
> >> > > base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be present anyway.
> >> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ewan.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >
>
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
Ewan,
First, thanks for stepping up to help organize everyone around the
release process. We have all agreed that getting to a "legal" release
is the priority, and we also agreed to target a time-bound release
model. It's a thank-less job sometimes to be the one to "crack the
wip". It was needed. Perhaps we need to look at how to rotate that
around the community for future releases, so that everybody gets a
chance to take some of that heat... ;-)
On the tactical topic of the AWS API's for our first release, I think
we need to compromise a bit here. If Prachi can get everything
working without the WSDL files being in the source tree, then that
would be sufficient to achieve our primary objective for the release.
Due to the noted concerns about the current quality of the query API,
my personal opinion would be to release with the SOAP API intact. If
we run into issues making it work without the WSDL's, we'll need an
alternative strategy to deal with the licensing / copyright issue for
those files.
Strategically, I would like to second Chiradeep's proposal that we aim
to convert from SOAP to Query. That will require testing effort, but
I believe it's the right move long term. Assuming the WSDL's can be
removed cleanly, this deprecation step would be in a future release.
However, I would strongly suggest that we include a notice in the 4.0
release notes that expresses our aim to convert from SOAP to Query.
This, of course, assumes that nobody strongly disagrees with that
strategy.
To summarize, can we agree on the following?
1 - Prachi will update the list with his findings (attempting to
remove the WSDL files).
2 - If Prachi is able to get it working, we release WITH the SOAP API
intact, but with a notice of planned deprecation.
3 - If Prachi is not able to get it working, then we remove the SOAP
API for this release, and do some of the basic testing required to
assess quality for the Query API. This would allow us to make an
informed decision about how to handle the situation.
-chip
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has asked for time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people decide that they don't want time-based releases after all, then we can start again with a new release plan.
>
> That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked the question multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as soon as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months (it will be five months on the current release plan) and we're already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't use Apache releases because they are crippled compared with Citrix's.
>
> Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the whip to make sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the group decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond, then that's a decision that's open to them.
>
> Ewan.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>> Adrian Cole
>> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: Prachi Damle
>> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>>
>> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess we'll have to either
>> convince you or deal with your decision.
>>
>> -A
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
>> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
>>
>> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code for
>> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can convince me that
>> > it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of open development, 1
>> > week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy to take that step and
>> > remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be Query API only. If it can't
>> > be done in the next two weeks then we're talking about slipping the
>> release, and no-one wants that.
>> >
>> > Ewan.
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
>> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
>> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > >
>> > > From Chiradeep's note:
>> > >
>> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as
>> > > > well as the Query API.
>> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
>> > >
>> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the query API...
>> > > which would then need testing.
>> > >
>> > > Am I misunderstanding?
>> > >
>> > > -chip
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
>> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
>> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
>> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> > Just curious.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was
>> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip out the SOAP
>> interface?
>> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first
>> > > >> > version of
>> > > something.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > -A
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case, deprecate =
>> > > >> rip
>> > it out.
>> > > >
>> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general
>> > > > development
>> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get the
>> > > query
>> > API
>> > > implemented in that time?
>> > > >
>> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking at what
>> > happens
>> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in the code
>> > > base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be present anyway.
>> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Ewan.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>.
No, it's not my decision to make alone. This group has asked for time-based releases, so that's what I'm doing. If people decide that they don't want time-based releases after all, then we can start again with a new release plan.
That's not what people have asked for though. We've asked the question multiple times, and every time the answer comes back -- ship as soon as you can. We haven't shipped an Apache release for four months (it will be five months on the current release plan) and we're already seeing articles saying that you shouldn't use Apache releases because they are crippled compared with Citrix's.
Like I say, this isn't my decision. I'm just cracking the whip to make sure people actually get what they're asking for. If the group decides that it wants to slip to October or beyond, then that's a decision that's open to them.
Ewan.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ferncam1@gmail.com [mailto:ferncam1@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Adrian Cole
> Sent: 02 August 2012 09:14
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Prachi Damle
> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>
> Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess we'll have to either
> convince you or deal with your decision.
>
> -A
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor
> <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
>
> > The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code for
> > "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can convince me that
> > it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of open development, 1
> > week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy to take that step and
> > remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be Query API only. If it can't
> > be done in the next two weeks then we're talking about slipping the
> release, and no-one wants that.
> >
> > Ewan.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >
> > > From Chiradeep's note:
> > >
> > > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as
> > > > well as the Query API.
> > > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> > >
> > > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the query API...
> > > which would then need testing.
> > >
> > > Am I misunderstanding?
> > >
> > > -chip
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor
> > > <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> > > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > Just curious.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was
> > > >> > formerly in a different repo, why don't we just rip out the SOAP
> interface?
> > > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first
> > > >> > version of
> > > something.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -A
> > > >>
> > > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case, deprecate =
> > > >> rip
> > it out.
> > > >
> > > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general
> > > > development
> > > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get the
> > > query
> > API
> > > implemented in that time?
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking at what
> > happens
> > > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in the code
> > > base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be present anyway.
> > > Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Ewan.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
Well, if this is your decision to make alone, then I guess we'll have to
either convince you or deal with your decision.
-A
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>wrote:
> The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code for "doesn't
> work and has never worked". If someone can convince me that it will be
> working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of open development, 1 week stability
> and bugfixing) then I'm happy to take that step and remove the SOAP API and
> declare 4.0 to be Query API only. If it can't be done in the next two
> weeks then we're talking about slipping the release, and no-one wants that.
>
> Ewan.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: Prachi Damle
> > Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >
> > From Chiradeep's note:
> >
> > > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as well
> > > as the Query API.
> > > However the Query API is not well tested.
> >
> > So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the query API...
> > which would then need testing.
> >
> > Am I misunderstanding?
> >
> > -chip
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> > >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> > >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > Just curious.
> > >> >
> > >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was formerly
> > >> > in a different repo, why don't we just rip out the SOAP interface?
> > >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first version of
> > something.
> > >> >
> > >> > -A
> > >>
> > >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case, deprecate = rip
> it out.
> > >
> > > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general development
> > time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get the query
> API
> > implemented in that time?
> > >
> > > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking at what
> happens
> > when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in the code base,
> > so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be present anyway. Prachi is
> > looking at whether that's true.
> >
> > >
> > > Ewan.
> > >
> > >
>
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>.
The problem is that "not well tested" is likely to be code for "doesn't work and has never worked". If someone can convince me that it will be working in the next 2 weeks (1 week of open development, 1 week stability and bugfixing) then I'm happy to take that step and remove the SOAP API and declare 4.0 to be Query API only. If it can't be done in the next two weeks then we're talking about slipping the release, and no-one wants that.
Ewan.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: 02 August 2012 08:37
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Prachi Damle
> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>
> From Chiradeep's note:
>
> > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as well
> > as the Query API.
> > However the Query API is not well tested.
>
> So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the query API...
> which would then need testing.
>
> Am I misunderstanding?
>
> -chip
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>
> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole
> >> <ad...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Just curious.
> >> >
> >> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was formerly
> >> > in a different repo, why don't we just rip out the SOAP interface?
> >> > That's a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first version of
> something.
> >> >
> >> > -A
> >>
> >> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case, deprecate = rip it out.
> >
> > Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general development
> time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get the query API
> implemented in that time?
> >
> > Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking at what happens
> when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in the code base,
> so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be present anyway. Prachi is
> looking at whether that's true.
>
> >
> > Ewan.
> >
> >
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
>From Chiradeep's note:
> Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as well as
> the Query API.
> However the Query API is not well tested.
So removing the SOAP interface would leave us with the query API...
which would then need testing.
Am I misunderstanding?
-chip
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Just curious.
>> >
>> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was formerly in a
>> > different repo, why don't we just rip out the SOAP interface? That's
>> > a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first version of something.
>> >
>> > -A
>>
>> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case, deprecate = rip it out.
>
> Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general development time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get the query API implemented in that time?
>
> Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking at what happens when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in the code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be present anyway. Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
>
> Ewan.
>
>
RE: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Ewan Mellor <Ew...@eu.citrix.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> Sent: 02 August 2012 07:58
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Just curious.
> >
> > If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was formerly in a
> > different repo, why don't we just rip out the SOAP interface? That's
> > a heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first version of something.
> >
> > -A
>
> I think we are saying the same thing. In this case, deprecate = rip it out.
Are we saying that? We've got 6 working days of general development time before we start locking down for a release. Can we get the query API implemented in that time?
Regarding the specific licensing issue, Prachi is looking at what happens when we remove the WSDLs. The server stubs are already in the code base, so in theory we shouldn't need the WSDLs to be present anyway. Prachi is looking at whether that's true.
Ewan.
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just curious.
>
> If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was formerly in a
> different repo, why don't we just rip out the SOAP interface? That's a
> heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first version of something.
>
> -A
I think we are saying the same thing. In this case, deprecate = rip it out.
-chip
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
Just curious.
If this is the first apache release, and cloudbridge was formerly in a
different repo, why don't we just rip out the SOAP interface? That's a
heck of a lot simpler than deprecating the first version of something.
-A
On Aug 2, 2012 5:51 AM, "Chip Childers" <ch...@sungard.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
> <Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > It appears that the WSDL-based toolset is being deprecated by AWS [1].
> >
> > Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as well as
> > the Query API.
> > However the Query API is not well tested.
> > Furthermore the implemented WSDL is of 2010-08 vintage.
> >
> > Does it make sense to likewise deprecate the WSDL interface in the EC2
> API
> > compatibility module?
>
> +1
>
> Chiradeep, would you be willing to make those changes? Or can someone
> else step up? As David mentioned, beyond the logic that AWS is
> deprecating that interface, it would eliminate a potential licensing
> issue for us.
>
> >
> > IMO we should focus on the Query API since everybody else seems to use
> > this mode (and now even AWS is deprecating it).
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AWSEC2/latest/CommandLineReference/CLTRG-
> > common-args-api.html
> >
> >
>
Re: ec2 API compatibility (WSDL vs Query)
Posted by Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
<Ch...@citrix.com> wrote:
> It appears that the WSDL-based toolset is being deprecated by AWS [1].
>
> Currently the EC2 API layer implements both the WSDL interface as well as
> the Query API.
> However the Query API is not well tested.
> Furthermore the implemented WSDL is of 2010-08 vintage.
>
> Does it make sense to likewise deprecate the WSDL interface in the EC2 API
> compatibility module?
+1
Chiradeep, would you be willing to make those changes? Or can someone
else step up? As David mentioned, beyond the logic that AWS is
deprecating that interface, it would eliminate a potential licensing
issue for us.
>
> IMO we should focus on the Query API since everybody else seems to use
> this mode (and now even AWS is deprecating it).
>
> [1]
> http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AWSEC2/latest/CommandLineReference/CLTRG-
> common-args-api.html
>
>