<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Radek Novacek <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rnovacek@redhat.com" target="_blank">rnovacek@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Thu 10 of Oct 2013 14:08:58 ganesh kumar wrote:<br>
> Until now we were trying to extend the existing providers.<br>
<br>
</div>For ease of development you can continue to extend existing providers.<br>
Separation to a new provider should be quite straight forward.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> If developing a new Nas provider is what it takes to make a contribution to<br>
> OpenLMI, we will start working on it immediately.<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, we would like to have the NAS provider as separate provider (but still<br>
part of the openlmi-providers). What features do you plan to add?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We are working on NFS share. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
> we hope your guidance will continue in the same way....<br>
<br>
</div>We'll try to do our best.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Radek Novacek<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Radek Novacek <<a href="mailto:rnovacek@redhat.com">rnovacek@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > On Wed 09 of Oct 2013 16:31:33 ganesh kumar wrote:<br>
> > > Hi,<br>
> > ><br>
> > > We are implemented "NAS Network Ports" profile, Started with<br>
> > ><br>
> > > ProtocolEndpoint class, we implemented "LMI_NASProtocolEndpoint" class,<br>
> > > please review our code.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > And also i have some doubt, How to add a condition when ever NFS process<br>
> > > runs it has to create an instance in NASProtocolEndpoint class, what<br>
> ><br>
> > logic<br>
> ><br>
> > > should i use?<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi,<br>
> ><br>
> > I understand the SNIA NAS Network Port Profile quite differently. I<br>
> > believe<br>
> > that there should be one instance of LMI_NASProtocolEndpoint for each NFS<br>
> > or<br>
> > CIFS share in the system, not for each network port. This<br>
> > LMI_NASProtocolEndpoint instance should be associated with existing<br>
> > LMI_NetworkPorts through DeviceSAPImplementation.<br>
> ><br>
> > May I ask if you're intending to submit your work to OpenLMI project? If<br>
> > so,<br>
> > please make the NAS provider an individual provider in the<br>
> > openlmi-providers<br>
> > repository (not part of networking provider). You can still depend on<br>
> > classes<br>
> > from networking provider, but we believe that this provider shouldn't be<br>
> > part<br>
> > of the networking provider itself.<br>
> ><br>
> > We would be glad to include your contribution into the OpenLMI Project<br>
> > once it<br>
> > will be conceptually and formally correct.<br>
> ><br>
> > Radek Novacek<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br><br><font style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)" color="#333333" face="'courier new', monospace" size="4"></font>
</div></div>