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.marte...@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.marte...@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 <hsbath...@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 <ilgro...@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 < >>>>>>>> ilgro...@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" < >>>>>>>>> ilgro...@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.gard...@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:ilgro...@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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ilgro...@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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ilgro...@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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ilgro...@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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > -- > Fabio Martelli > > Tirasa - Open Source Excellence > http://www.tirasa.net/ > > Apache Syncope PMC > http://people.apache.org/~fmartelli/ > >
