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 Fri, 10 Apr 2015 08:27:44 GMT
On 08/04/2015 22:58, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
> I'd say the plan is to merge #161 first, to have a tested and working
> implementation of the compute service.
>
> Once that one is in, we can discuss about the convenience of changing
> the current model to have a better mapping from the jclouds "node"
> object to the Azure entities. Regarding this, we can not expect
> everyone to read the Azure API docs, so a summary of the motivation
> behind that change, an overview of the current vs the proposed model
> and the pros and cons of the change would be highly appreciated.

Waiting for PR #161 to get merged, here's my view on the refactoring 
proposed to have a 'better mapping from the jclouds "node" object to the 
Azure entities', e.g. for the subject of Bhathiya's PR #157 (still 
without a corresponding issue on JIRA, shouldn't we open it?).

Currently there is a direct match between Deployment (Azure) and Node 
(JClouds), by mean of DeploymentToNodeMetadata:

https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/functions/DeploymentToNodeMetadata.java

However, in Azure a deployment can contain multiple virtual machines; 
the current code makes instead assumption that a deployment contains a 
single virtual machine, and uses the same name for both.

For this reason Bhathiya is working for replacing 
DeploymentToNodeMetadata with a new VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata, which 
requires to implement the "Add Role" operation (as reported below) in 
order to add "a Virtual Machine to a deployment of Virtual Machines", as 
reported in

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx

Naturally, this modification has a significant impact on the live test 
execution.

So, in summary:

  * PRO - do not impose limitations on the way how Azure features can be 
driven via JClouds, because without this change one is forced to create 
a new deployment for every new virtual machine; moreover, even if I 
cannot find a specific reference in the documentation, it seems that you 
can only have a single deployment for deployment slot (e.g. "Production" 
or "Staging") which would mean that, in order to have 2 virtual 
machines, you need to have 2 distinct deployments in 2 distinct cloud 
services

* CON - additional work for ensuring that all live tests are still 
working in this new configuration

Fabio, Bhathiya, please correct / complete.

> Regarding promotion, we need to have the live tests passing (you did a
> fantastic job here, so that's not going to be a problem!) and a way to
> test it regularly. We have both requirements covered, so as soon as
> the compute service implementation is completed, and stable we can
> promote it.

Sounds good!

Regards.

> On 8 April 2015 at 11:42, Bhathiya Supun <hsbathiya@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Francesco,
>>
>> 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
>> It  does not complete issue 839. It only support GetCloudServiceProperties
>> Operation.  I will rebase it. Further I can work on JCLOUD-839( if no one
>> working on it) .However do we need suport for all the operations? Shall we
>> decide on what operations need to be supported
>>
>> 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
>> It is complete and I'll have to rebase.
>>
>> 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
>>     particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
>>
>> I have finished working on AddRole opertaion. However it may require little
>> bit of work to rebase. I'll continue workion on that if all are agreed with
>> the proposed changes.
>>
>> 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
>> It is need to be rebased as well. There were few issues with live tests
>> when I make the PR and I have now fixed it
>>
>> 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
>> It is outdated and I'll close it
>>
>> what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider out of labs?
>>
>> should we support Operations on Autoscaling? [1]
>>
>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn510374.aspx
>>
>>
>> On 8 April 2015 at 13:20, Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgrosso@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
View raw message