lizhimins commented on PR #1039:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-dashboard/pull/1039#issuecomment-5249875835

   Review update (2026-08-11): this PR builds and its tests pass, but the 
design now conflicts with the multi-vendor architecture already merged into 
`rocketmq-studio`, so we cannot merge it as-is. Keeping it open for a rework.
   
   **Conflicts with merged work**
   1. `cluster/cloud.CloudMetadataProvider` duplicates the existing 
`provider.CloudCatalogProvider` (listInstances ≡ listCloudInstances, endpoints 
≡ CloudInstanceDetailVO); the new `CloudVendor` enum duplicates 
`InstanceVendor`; the 3 new VOs duplicate CloudRegionVO / CloudInstanceOptionVO 
/ CloudInstanceDetailVO.
   2. Credential model: the merged design resolves credentials by 
`credentialId` from the DB credential store (RmqCloudCredential, see 
#1147/#1231); this PR switches to global AK/SK environment variables — two 
mechanisms cannot coexist.
   3. SDK split: merged Aliyun integration uses rocketmq20220801 (5.x control 
plane); this PR adds ons20190214 (4.x ONS), which cannot see 5.x instances, and 
its client factory duplicates AliyunClientFactory.
   4. Direction vs #1535: Tencent capabilities have landed on the 
InstanceProvider side (TencentInstanceProvider); the TENCENT/HUAWEI enum 
entries here have no implementation, and `/api/cloud/*` forms a second 
discovery API alongside the existing catalog controller.
   
   **Suggested direction**: rewrite on top of the existing `provider/` stack — 
extend `CloudCatalogProvider` + DB credential store + the 20220801 SDK instead 
of introducing a parallel package. Happy to review the rework here.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to