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 <hsbath...@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.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/ >> >> >
