jclouds-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ignasi Barrera <n...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2015 20:58:43 GMT
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.

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.



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 #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?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 It is outdated and I'll close it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