I just added https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/167.
I have resolved merge conflicts and made some changes in live test of PR#144. Shall we merge PR#167 now? Regards. On 14 April 2015 at 12:54, Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgro...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all, > as you might have seen, the PR #161 was merged yesterday. > > How should we move forward? > > Bhathiya, do you have any news? > > Regards. > > > On 10/04/2015 10:27, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote: > >> On 08/04/2015 22:58, Ignasi Barrera wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Waiting for PR #161 to get merged, here's my view on the refactoring >> proposed to have a 'better mapping from the jclouds "node" object to the >> Azure entities', e.g. for the subject of Bhathiya's PR #157 (still without >> a corresponding issue on JIRA, shouldn't we open it?). >> >> Currently there is a direct match between Deployment (Azure) and Node >> (JClouds), by mean of DeploymentToNodeMetadata: >> >> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/ >> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/functions/ >> DeploymentToNodeMetadata.java >> >> However, in Azure a deployment can contain multiple virtual machines; the >> current code makes instead assumption that a deployment contains a single >> virtual machine, and uses the same name for both. >> >> For this reason Bhathiya is working for replacing >> DeploymentToNodeMetadata with a new VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata, which >> requires to implement the "Add Role" operation (as reported below) in order >> to add "a Virtual Machine to a deployment of Virtual Machines", as reported >> in >> >> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx >> >> Naturally, this modification has a significant impact on the live test >> execution. >> >> So, in summary: >> >> * PRO - do not impose limitations on the way how Azure features can be >> driven via JClouds, because without this change one is forced to create a >> new deployment for every new virtual machine; moreover, even if I cannot >> find a specific reference in the documentation, it seems that you can only >> have a single deployment for deployment slot (e.g. "Production" or >> "Staging") which would mean that, in order to have 2 virtual machines, you >> need to have 2 distinct deployments in 2 distinct cloud services >> >> * CON - additional work for ensuring that all live tests are still >> working in this new configuration >> >> Fabio, Bhathiya, please correct / complete. >> >> 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. >>> >> >> Sounds good! >> >> Regards. >> >> On 8 April 2015 at 11:42, Bhathiya Supun <hsbath...@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 <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/ > > >
