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 Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:02:30 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message