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 #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?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 <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

--
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/

Reply via email to