Enums were deprecated, in favor of a better pluggable platform, and replaced with Strings. You could keep locally the enums and use the name() wherever the enum was used.
On 5 March 2014 16:48, Carlos Garcia Ibañez <[email protected]>wrote: > Thank you for your quick response, Ignasi. > > I've just updated the pom, but some classes are missing, mostly enumerated > types (like HypervisorType, TaskType and DiskFormatType). Do you know > where I can find them? > > For the rest of the compilation errors, I think I'll take an aggressive > approach, just to have a patched version as soon as possible J > > > > *From:* Ignasi Barrera [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 05 March 2014 15:31 > *To:* Carlos Garcia Ibañez > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [jclouds/abiquo issue] The vDC soft limits cannot be > forced in version 2.6 of the API > > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > The provider assumes an Abiquo 2.4, and unfortunately I haven't had time > to update it. However, you could try upgrading the "api-model-transport" > dependency to "2.6.0", which already comes with the new flag. > > Other things may break, as the model classes in that version are aligned > with 2.6, but fixing them should be pretty straightforward. Also executing > the live tests will give good feedback too. > > > > Could you try it and share the results? > > > > > > > > On 5 March 2014 15:11, Carlos Garcia Ibañez <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi all. > > I've just opened an issue in Jira > (JCLOUDS-488<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-488>) > regarding the problem we are facing since we changed to the version 2.6 of > the Abiquo API: > > > > *We have recently migrated to the version 2.6 of the Abiquo API. In this > version, in order to force the vDC soft limits when deploying a new VM, the > flag forceVdcLimits must be set to true.* > > *Currently, the VirtualMachine class does not allow to specify such flag > when invoking the deploy() method. * > > *Moreover, the underlying VirtualMachineTaskDto class used to execute the > operation does not accept this flag neither, but this class is located in > the api-model-transport dependency, and I wonder how this change request > should be managed.* > > > > As mentioned, some of the changes should be made in the > api-model-transport dependency (currently, version 2.3.0), so I wonder if > there is a simple workaround for getting the expected behaviour. Any ideas? > Any suggestion will be appreciated. > > > > Thanks a lot and kind regards. > > > > > > Click > here<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/rCU1fFLEqVDGX2PQPOmvUg0KooX!PhOyAT96avYCdmmDeBnex!BfyJLZ0vP4Fqhr9cAo+ZZigFDCP4z!bwErJQ==>to > report this email as spam. >
