jclouds-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgro...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2015 07:50:29 GMT
Hi all,
let's recap the situation, after a while.

Several pull requests have been merged in the meanwhile and now the 
following issues are resolved:

 1. JCLOUDS-837
 2. JCLOUDS-838
 3. JCLOUDS-841
 4. JCLOUDS-842
 5. JCLOUDS-846
 6. JCLOUDS-849

Moreover, the following PR are needed to be merged before continuing:

 1. #156 (resolving JCLOUDS-850) - which should be merge any minute now,
    but requires jclouds/jclouds#724 / JCLOUDS-876
 2. #161 that, besides resolving JCLOUDS-873, contains important
    improvements for the live tests execution

More PRs from Bhathiya are also waiting, but might require some rebase:

 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
    particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?

Any thoughts? Plans?

Side question: what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider 
out of labs?

Regards.

On 25/03/2015 10:40, Bhathiya Supun wrote:

> Hi Francesco, Fabio
>
> I have make a PR [1] with the propsed changes. With the changes we no
> longer assume deployment name and Cloudservice name are equal.
>
> VirtualMachineToNodeMetadat can be
>
> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.
> <http://from.name/>serviceName()).location())).orNull());
>
> However Add Role Operation [2] should be suppported in order to service
> adapter to be complete. Now I am working on that.
>
> Please check my PR and update me on the way you would like to proceed
>
> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/157
> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>
>
> On 24 March 2015 at 17:25, Bhathiya Supun <hsbathiya@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Francesco, Fabilo
>>
>> @ Francsco It must be <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>. My
>> bad. What I was typing!
>>
>> It is mostly complete
>>
>> https://github.com/hsbhathiya/jclouds-labs/commit/cc24ecc201ff8a6740c232670be57dfc61745643
>> I'll be able to make  the PR with in a day.
>>
>> @Fabio.
>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>> Agree serviceName is an attribute in my VirtualMachine. However I have
>> made the same (wrong) assumption when transforming
>> DeploymentsToVirtualMachines in my solution. I'll look for a solution.
>>
>> May be we can get  the cloud service from the Url of deployment
>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460804.aspx
>>
>> Url
>>
>> Specifies the URL that is used to access the cloud service.For example, if
>> the service name is *MyService* you could access the access the service
>> by calling: http://*MyService*.cloudapp.net
>> I have to check it though.
>>
>>
>> On 24 March 2015 at 16:39, Fabio Martelli <fabio.martelli@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Il 24/03/2015 11:22, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Hi Bhathiya,
>>>> I was finally able to spend some time to dive into this issue
>>>> (JCLOUDS-853, if I am not wrong).
>>>>
>>>> What is quite clear to me is that the current mapping between Deployment
>>>> (azure domain) and NodeMetadata (jclouds domain) does not reflect the way
>>>> how things are organized in Azure.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, after having created a cloud service (using the test code)
>>>> 'ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest', the deployment and the virtual
>>>> machine with same name (using the code from one of live tests), I was also
>>>> able to add a second virtual machine to the existing deployment by POSTing
>>>> this payload [1] to this endpoint [2] (as explained in [3]).
>>>>
>>>> I mostly agree with what you propose below, e.g.:
>>>>
>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>>> list of virtual machines
>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>> 4 - Change  AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>> RoleList,OSImage,Location>"
>>>>
>>>> I say "mostly" because I don't fully agree with last statement: I would
>>>> have said instead
>>>>
>>>> <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>
>>>>
>>>> e.g. keeping RoleSize as class for listing hardware profiles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have you already started working on this? How long do you think it would
>>>> take to you to complete?
>>>> Consider that we already have a pending PR for JCLOUDS-850 and that a
>>>> new PR for JCLOUDS-849 should be ready by the end of this weel at most.
>>>> Depending on timings, it might be an idea to rebase our work on yours,
>>>> as opposite to what Fabio is proposing below.
>>>>
>>> Hi Bhathiya, as per Francesco, I got your proposal: it sounds reasonable
>>> with me.
>>> You can proceed if you want but I have to ask you to take care to make
>>> Location/CloudService ID available to populate NodeMetadata object.
>>>
>>> Currently, the deployment does not include the location among its
>>> properties: in order to set-up location for a new NodeMetadata object I had
>>> to retrieve this info asking for CloudService properties before.
>>>
>>> Into the DeploymentToNodeMetadata, my temporary solution for the location
>>> is the following
>>>
>>> // TODO: CloudService name is required (see JCLOUDS-849): waiting for
>>> JCLOUDS-853.
>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.name
>>> ()).location())).orNull());
>>>
>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>
>>> Please, let me have a feedback.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> F.
>>>
>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>>> Regards.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://paste.apache.org/gQoV
>>>> [2] https://management.core.windows.net/d6769fbe-4649-
>>>> 453f-8435-c07f0cc0709d/services/hostedservices/ilgrosso548-
>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/deployments/ilgrosso548-
>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/roles
>>>> [3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>
>>>> On 20/03/2015 17:35, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Fabio,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it. I just
>>>>> need
>>>>> to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
>>>>> mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better. It'll be
>>>>> great if
>>>>> someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli <fabio.martelli@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>>>>>>   Hi devs,
>>>>>>> I  like to bring back this[1]  discussion related to
>>>>>>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure
API.
>>>>>>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic
as Azure
>>>>>>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node
is the
>>>>>>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a roleinststace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My suggestion is to
>>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>> of virtual machines
>>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>>> 4 - Change  AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,
>>>>>>> Location> "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this.
>>>>>>> However
>>>>>>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the
>>>>>>> change.Any
>>>>>>> thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>> discussion_r25013853
>>>>>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact
of the
>>>>>> suggested changes.
>>>>>> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask you
to
>>>>>> wait
>>>>>> for [1]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
>>>>>>    * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every future
>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit the
>>>>>> new PR
>>>>>> at the beginning of the next week.
>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hsbathiya@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>    Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet
to make PR)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 -  Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>>>>>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to
capture all
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> data returned by the operation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3 -  Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation
[3]
>>>>>>>> allowing different combinations of  DeploymentParams
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>>>>>>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution,
and
>>>>>>>>> created PR
>>>>>>>>> #147
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST
API
>>>>>>>>> Reference at
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144
as said
>>>>>>>>> below) in
>>>>>>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>    Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations
in
>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>> Api
>>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò
<
>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications"
list to get
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   from jira and github comments. Everyting ends
up in a ML.
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>       Let's use the subtasks to coordinate
the development.
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks guys!
>>>>>>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current
activities
>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which
I hope will end up
>>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure
provider (#144):
>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>      El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò"
<
>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>    escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>      On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>       Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours
ago. I've also update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
to track
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    that's cool: do you know where
JIRA notifications are sent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>       On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM
Ross Gardler (MS OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TECH) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Set up a GitHub user for this
kid and subscribe ot to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<mailto:ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: ‎2/‎27/‎2015 7:54
AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<mailto:dev@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure
compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged
today:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base
our work on updated jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still
having troubles with live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions
like the one above or at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github
PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of
ongoing development efforts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing
list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues
as we've been discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Sure. I'll have a look at
it later today and merge it if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40,
Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ilgrosso@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      On 24/02/2015 15:25,
Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    thanks for your update
and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost
ready to be merged, I think we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    the main pending
discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    What about merging
#135 as is and moving the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked
to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        I like both the idea
of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     simply create a new
set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      Anything goes
to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       On Tue Feb 24 2015
at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     <ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     a quick update
on ours (Fabio's and mine) current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   First of all, we
are basing our work on PR #135 rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs'
master, since the former contains a whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    new features,
and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone
able to provide a sneak peek on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    merge timeframe? From
the e-mail below it seems quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently
trying to make all live tests succeeding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Azure instance:
this is the initial main purpose of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the
ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    (Incidentally, I remember
that there are free MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   available - including
Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention
is then to move from there by identifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    JCLOUDS-664
for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45,
Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      On 20/02/2015
10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    thanks
for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure
Compute implementation is under the spot these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working
hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may
be aware of [1] and moreover there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently
a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending
PRs which are providing an initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter
[2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     
Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Azure
SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion,
and I also know that at the end the REST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       As
[2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   your #137
on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     
This sounds reasonable: I think we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate
our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    opening
some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    being as much
effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    How would do you see
this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Feel free to
join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already
there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       [1]:
http://www.mail-archive.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     [2]:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   On Fri
Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ilgrosso@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Hi JClouds
community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     I am
interested in contributing to the Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target
of completing its implementation, as part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus
on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
see as initial directions to implement methods in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
    change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
  the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   I have
prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g.
against an actual Azure subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4]
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-- 
Francesco Chicchiriccò

Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/

Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message