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 #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it? It is outdated and I'll close it what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider out of labs?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 <ilgro...@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 #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?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 <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/ > >
