> + destroyNode(container.getId());
> + throw new IllegalStateException(String.format("Container %s has not
> started correctly", container.getId()));
> + }
> + return new NodeAndInitialCredentials<Container>(container,
> container.getId(),
> +
> LoginCredentials.builder().user(loginUser).password(loginUserPassword).build());
> + }
> +
> + @Override
> + public Iterable<Hardware> listHardwareProfiles() {
> + Set<Hardware> hardware = Sets.newLinkedHashSet();
> + // todo they are only placeholders at the moment
> + hardware.add(new
> HardwareBuilder().ids("micro").hypervisor("lxc").name("micro").ram(512).build());
> + hardware.add(new
> HardwareBuilder().ids("small").hypervisor("lxc").name("small").ram(1024).build());
> + hardware.add(new
> HardwareBuilder().ids("medium").hypervisor("lxc").name("medium").ram(2048).build());
> + hardware.add(new
> HardwareBuilder().ids("large").hypervisor("lxc").name("large").ram(3072).build());
> + return hardware;
The list of hardware profiles should also include the cpu. I see two things to
improve here:
* Provide more cpu/ram combinations (otherwise is not enough flexible), such as
providers like CloudSigma do (those also have hardcoded hardware profiles).
* Create a Supplier<Hardware>, qualified with something like `@Default` to
avoid collisions with the jclouds hardware supplier, to let people bind their
own hardware profiles if they need different ones.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/57/files#r12937224
