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 Mon, 20 Apr 2015 07:16:27 GMT
Hi,
I've seen some activity on #167, and a new #168 - can someone take a 
look and review? Thanks!

On 14/04/2015 15:02, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
> I just added https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/167.
>
> I have resolved merge conflicts and made some changes in live test of
>   PR#144.
>
> Shall we merge PR#167 now?
>
> Regards.
>
>
> On 14 April 2015 at 12:54, Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgrosso@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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