jclouds-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bhathiya Supun <hsbath...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2015 09:42:32 GMT
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 #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
It is outdated and I'll close it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 #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message