You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@jclouds.apache.org by Aled Sage <al...@gmail.com> on 2013/09/12 10:23:49 UTC

softlayer minRam: now in MB instead of GB

Hi all,

There's a non backwards compatible change to jclouds softlayer, where 
templateBuilder.minRam(int) will now be interpreted as MB rather than 
GB. This will be in the next 1.6.x release (1.6.3), and will be in 1.7.x 
when that's released.

This makes it consistent with the compute abstraction for other 
providers in jclouds.

The issue and pull request are at [1] and [2]. Please shout out or 
comment on these if you have strong opinions!

Aled

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-269
[2] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/147

Re: softlayer minRam: now in MB instead of GB

Posted by Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>.

Thanks for the fix!

I don't know how critical (and needed) is this change, but if it can break
existing code in a silent way (code will still compile but units will ha e
a different meaning) I'm not sure if it is a good idea to include it in
1.6.3.

I.
El 12/09/2013 10:24, "Aled Sage" <al...@gmail.com> escribió:

> Hi all,
>
> There's a non backwards compatible change to jclouds softlayer, where
> templateBuilder.minRam(int) will now be interpreted as MB rather than GB.
> This will be in the next 1.6.x release (1.6.3), and will be in 1.7.x when
> that's released.
>
> This makes it consistent with the compute abstraction for other providers
> in jclouds.
>
> The issue and pull request are at [1] and [2]. Please shout out or comment
> on these if you have strong opinions!
>
> Aled
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/JCLOUDS-269<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-269>
> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/**jclouds/pull/147<https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/147>
>
>

Re: softlayer minRam: now in MB instead of GB

Posted by Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>.

Thanks for the fix!

I don't know how critical (and needed) is this change, but if it can break
existing code in a silent way (code will still compile but units will ha e
a different meaning) I'm not sure if it is a good idea to include it in
1.6.3.

I.
El 12/09/2013 10:24, "Aled Sage" <al...@gmail.com> escribió:

> Hi all,
>
> There's a non backwards compatible change to jclouds softlayer, where
> templateBuilder.minRam(int) will now be interpreted as MB rather than GB.
> This will be in the next 1.6.x release (1.6.3), and will be in 1.7.x when
> that's released.
>
> This makes it consistent with the compute abstraction for other providers
> in jclouds.
>
> The issue and pull request are at [1] and [2]. Please shout out or comment
> on these if you have strong opinions!
>
> Aled
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/JCLOUDS-269<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-269>
> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/**jclouds/pull/147<https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/147>
>
>