For the past few weeks I have been working on creating a schema that fully describes the vdsm API. I am mostly finished with that effort and I wanted to share the results with the team. Attached are two files: the raw schema and an html document with cross-linked type information.
This should already be useful in its current form, but I have bigger plans. I would first like to get help to correct errors in the schema. Then, I will start the process of writing a code generator that will create C/gObject code that we can compile into a libvdsm with language bindings for python, java, etc.
Please take a look at the attached files and let me know what you think?
P.S. I tried to attach these to the oVirt Wiki, but they are not permitted file types.
On 07/15/2012 03:12 AM, Adam Litke wrote:
For the past few weeks I have been working on creating a schema that fully describes the vdsm API. I am mostly finished with that effort and I wanted to share the results with the team. Attached are two files: the raw schema and an html document with cross-linked type information.
This should already be useful in its current form, but I have bigger plans. I would first like to get help to correct errors in the schema. Then, I will start the process of writing a code generator that will create C/gObject code that we can compile into a libvdsm with language bindings for python, java, etc.
Please take a look at the attached files and let me know what you think?
P.S. I tried to attach these to the oVirt Wiki, but they are not permitted file types.
vdsm-devel mailing list vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
Hi Adam,
that's quite a big scheme to review. have you thought about ways to solicit inputs for it? (maybe schedule per topic reviews of the new scheme/api for VM operations (virt), network (host level, vm level), storage, sla policy, etc.)?
Thanks, Itamar
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 09:09:52AM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 07/15/2012 03:12 AM, Adam Litke wrote:
For the past few weeks I have been working on creating a schema that fully describes the vdsm API. I am mostly finished with that effort and I wanted to share the results with the team. Attached are two files: the raw schema and an html document with cross-linked type information.
This should already be useful in its current form, but I have bigger plans. I would first like to get help to correct errors in the schema. Then, I will start the process of writing a code generator that will create C/gObject code that we can compile into a libvdsm with language bindings for python, java, etc.
Please take a look at the attached files and let me know what you think?
P.S. I tried to attach these to the oVirt Wiki, but they are not permitted file types.
Hi Adam,
that's quite a big scheme to review. have you thought about ways to solicit inputs for it? (maybe schedule per topic reviews of the new scheme/api for VM operations (virt), network (host level, vm level), storage, sla policy, etc.)?
For the first pass, we are trying to replicate the current API as much as possible. For subsequent refactoring, I'd expect the discussions to occur in the community around the patches that are implementing the proposed changes.
On 10/22/2012 03:04 PM, Adam Litke wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 09:09:52AM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 07/15/2012 03:12 AM, Adam Litke wrote:
For the past few weeks I have been working on creating a schema that fully describes the vdsm API. I am mostly finished with that effort and I wanted to share the results with the team. Attached are two files: the raw schema and an html document with cross-linked type information.
This should already be useful in its current form, but I have bigger plans. I would first like to get help to correct errors in the schema. Then, I will start the process of writing a code generator that will create C/gObject code that we can compile into a libvdsm with language bindings for python, java, etc.
Please take a look at the attached files and let me know what you think?
P.S. I tried to attach these to the oVirt Wiki, but they are not permitted file types.
Hi Adam,
that's quite a big scheme to review. have you thought about ways to solicit inputs for it? (maybe schedule per topic reviews of the new scheme/api for VM operations (virt), network (host level, vm level), storage, sla policy, etc.)?
For the first pass, we are trying to replicate the current API as much as possible. For subsequent refactoring, I'd expect the discussions to occur in the community around the patches that are implementing the proposed changes.
I think it would be worth highlighting these patches on mailing list, or even do a scheduled discussion/brainstorm around various parts for where it should go.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:56:16PM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 10/22/2012 03:04 PM, Adam Litke wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 09:09:52AM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 07/15/2012 03:12 AM, Adam Litke wrote:
For the past few weeks I have been working on creating a schema that fully describes the vdsm API. I am mostly finished with that effort and I wanted to share the results with the team. Attached are two files: the raw schema and an html document with cross-linked type information.
This should already be useful in its current form, but I have bigger plans. I would first like to get help to correct errors in the schema. Then, I will start the process of writing a code generator that will create C/gObject code that we can compile into a libvdsm with language bindings for python, java, etc.
Please take a look at the attached files and let me know what you think?
P.S. I tried to attach these to the oVirt Wiki, but they are not permitted file types.
Hi Adam,
that's quite a big scheme to review. have you thought about ways to solicit inputs for it? (maybe schedule per topic reviews of the new scheme/api for VM operations (virt), network (host level, vm level), storage, sla policy, etc.)?
For the first pass, we are trying to replicate the current API as much as possible. For subsequent refactoring, I'd expect the discussions to occur in the community around the patches that are implementing the proposed changes.
I think it would be worth highlighting these patches on mailing list, or even do a scheduled discussion/brainstorm around various parts for where it should go.
I have been trying to get some attention on it for some time. I agree it's a good idea. I'll be presenting it at the Barcelona workshop as well. Any other ideas on how to have a constructive and inclusive mailing list discussion would be welcomed :) In the past, it was hard to keep the thread focused and driving toward consensus.
On 10/22/2012 09:25 PM, Adam Litke wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:56:16PM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 10/22/2012 03:04 PM, Adam Litke wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 09:09:52AM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 07/15/2012 03:12 AM, Adam Litke wrote:
For the past few weeks I have been working on creating a schema that fully describes the vdsm API. I am mostly finished with that effort and I wanted to share the results with the team. Attached are two files: the raw schema and an html document with cross-linked type information.
This should already be useful in its current form, but I have bigger plans. I would first like to get help to correct errors in the schema. Then, I will start the process of writing a code generator that will create C/gObject code that we can compile into a libvdsm with language bindings for python, java, etc.
Please take a look at the attached files and let me know what you think?
P.S. I tried to attach these to the oVirt Wiki, but they are not permitted file types.
Hi Adam,
that's quite a big scheme to review. have you thought about ways to solicit inputs for it? (maybe schedule per topic reviews of the new scheme/api for VM operations (virt), network (host level, vm level), storage, sla policy, etc.)?
For the first pass, we are trying to replicate the current API as much as possible. For subsequent refactoring, I'd expect the discussions to occur in the community around the patches that are implementing the proposed changes.
I think it would be worth highlighting these patches on mailing list, or even do a scheduled discussion/brainstorm around various parts for where it should go.
I have been trying to get some attention on it for some time. I agree it's a good idea. I'll be presenting it at the Barcelona workshop as well. Any other ideas on how to have a constructive and inclusive mailing list discussion would be welcomed :) In the past, it was hard to keep the thread focused and driving toward consensus.
I'd try to focus on one area at time, do an email thread as a prep for a meeting to drive more consolidated discussions, then see where you reach.
vdsm-devel@lists.stg.fedorahosted.org
-
agl＠us.ibm.com -
iheim＠redhat.com