Honestly, we could promote GCS to core today -- let's skip the intermediate step. The URL signers are not much work which I could implement some time next week. The InputStream hack uses multipart upload to hack around a jclouds limitation but works fine from a user perspective. Can you share your filter-branch commands so I can preserve history?
Related, we could promote Backblaze B2 from labs to core. From my biased perspective this implementation has high quality. B2 lacks a provider guide which I could also write next week. On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 09:12:29AM +0100, Ignasi Barrera wrote: > Thanks for the links! > > I don't have a good overview on the status of all the blob store > providers, so I trust your criteria. How significant are these issues, > when it comes to the BlobStore abstraction? > > BTW, could we consider moving it to the "labs" repo? It does not make > sense to maintain a separate repo just for that provider. Moving to > labs does not require a groupId change, so it can be done in master > and 2.0.x. > > On 21 March 2017 at 08:45, Andrew Gaul <g...@apache.org> wrote: > > We have a meta-issue[1] tracking exactly this! From my perspective, GCS > > lacks temporary signed URLs[2] and has an involved issue with > > InputStream payloads[3] which make its implementation inferior to other > > blobstore providers. I can sprint on the former for 2.1.0 but the > > latter requires some effort. It would be great to eliminate > > jclouds-labs-google from a release process so perhaps we could overlook > > these issues? > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-944 > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-902 > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-912 > > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 08:21:44AM +0100, Ignasi Barrera wrote: > >> I'm just wondering if we should think about promoting GCS in the next > >> major. And if not, what's missing? > >> > >> > >> I. > > > > -- > > Andrew Gaul > > http://gaul.org/ -- Andrew Gaul http://gaul.org/
