@luciano-sabenca-movile Thanks for submitting this! I don't want to disrupt this PR at this late stage, since we can always follow up with another one. Just three main comments:
* adding concurrent actions to jclouds here seems to go rather against the direction we're talking elsewhere, where async stuff is being *removed* and the recommendation is for users to do the async in client code * if we feel parallelism is essential as a speedup here, why are we even keeping the old methods? * if we _do_ want to allow both approaches, an `Options` pattern would seem to be more consistent with the rest of jclouds, and also allows for future enhancements such as paging etc. I like the fact we're allowing the user to provide the executor, by the way! @nacx Thoughts..? --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-chef/pull/47#issuecomment-49440826
