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 Tue, 14 Apr 2015 07:24:53 GMT
Hi all,
as you might have seen, the PR #161 was merged yesterday.

How should we move forward?

Bhathiya, do you have any news?

Regards.

On 10/04/2015 10:27, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
> 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