You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jclouds.apache.org by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org> on 2015/03/02 12:12:06 UTC
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get all emails
> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development. Thanks guys!
Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities (e.g.
making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end up soon
with a pull request.
I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144): any
background on this?
Regards.
> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <il...@apache.org>
> escribió:
>
>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>
>>> Francesco,
>>>
>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>
>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track some subtasks
>>> identified in #135
>>>
>> Hi Andrea,
>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are sent, at least when
>> issues get created?
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Regards.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the project?
>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>
>>>> Hi there!
>>>>
>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#issuecomment-76381931
>>>>
>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs master
>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live tests, but
>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>
>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at least ask
>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts (you know,
>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing below?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Regards.
>>>>
>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if everything
>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are waiting to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> close
>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion mentioned above
>>>>> into
>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in multiple subtasks or
>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure compute
>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current activities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather than
>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole set of fixes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and
>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on expected actual
>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite soon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding with an
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> actual
>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our contribution,
>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN subscriptions
>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying some subtasks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of
>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these days and we
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are currently a couple
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial implementation of the
>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent "Azure SDK Vs REST"
>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST option was
>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait for #135 and then
>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should coordinate our work (even
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid latency and
>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next steps!
>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@jclouds.apache.org/msg05877.
>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute provider with
>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of Eduard's team
>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in [2] and to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing something?
>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes some troubles
>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure subscription) test
>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/
>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/config/
>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org>.
That's great Francesco,
I'll review both PRs this week, so you can expect to have them merged
soon after that, depending on the work required derived from the
review comments.
Thanks!
On 4 March 2015 at 14:32, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and created PR #147
>
> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API Reference at
>
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>
> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said below) in
> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>
> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
> Thanks for your support.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>
>> Hi Francesco,
>>
>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in feature Api
>> [1].
>>
>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>
>>
>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get all emails
>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>
>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>
>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development. Thanks guys!
>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities (e.g.
>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end up soon
>>> with
>>> a pull request.
>>>
>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144): any
>>> background on this?
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>
>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <il...@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> escribió:
>>>>
>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track some
>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>
>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are sent, at least
>>>>> when
>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the project?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs master
>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live tests, but
>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at least
>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts (you know,
>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing below?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if everything
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are waiting
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion mentioned
>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in multiple
>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather than
>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole set of
>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on expected
>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding with an
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our
>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying some
>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these days and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent "Azure SDK Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST option was
>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait for #135
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should coordinate our work
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid latency
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in [2] and to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing something?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes some troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>
>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
> http://www.tirasa.net/
>
> Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
> member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I've seen some activity on #167, and a new #168 - can someone take a
look and review? Thanks!
On 14/04/2015 15:02, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
> I just added https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/167.
>
> I have resolved merge conflicts and made some changes in live test of
> PR#144.
>
> Shall we merge PR#167 now?
>
> Regards.
>
>
> On 14 April 2015 at 12:54, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> as you might have seen, the PR #161 was merged yesterday.
>>
>> How should we move forward?
>>
>> Bhathiya, do you have any news?
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>> On 10/04/2015 10:27, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/04/2015 22:58, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd say the plan is to merge #161 first, to have a tested and working
>>>> implementation of the compute service.
>>>>
>>>> Once that one is in, we can discuss about the convenience of changing
>>>> the current model to have a better mapping from the jclouds "node"
>>>> object to the Azure entities. Regarding this, we can not expect
>>>> everyone to read the Azure API docs, so a summary of the motivation
>>>> behind that change, an overview of the current vs the proposed model
>>>> and the pros and cons of the change would be highly appreciated.
>>>>
>>> Waiting for PR #161 to get merged, here's my view on the refactoring
>>> proposed to have a 'better mapping from the jclouds "node" object to the
>>> Azure entities', e.g. for the subject of Bhathiya's PR #157 (still without
>>> a corresponding issue on JIRA, shouldn't we open it?).
>>>
>>> Currently there is a direct match between Deployment (Azure) and Node
>>> (JClouds), by mean of DeploymentToNodeMetadata:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/functions/
>>> DeploymentToNodeMetadata.java
>>>
>>> However, in Azure a deployment can contain multiple virtual machines; the
>>> current code makes instead assumption that a deployment contains a single
>>> virtual machine, and uses the same name for both.
>>>
>>> For this reason Bhathiya is working for replacing
>>> DeploymentToNodeMetadata with a new VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata, which
>>> requires to implement the "Add Role" operation (as reported below) in order
>>> to add "a Virtual Machine to a deployment of Virtual Machines", as reported
>>> in
>>>
>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>
>>> Naturally, this modification has a significant impact on the live test
>>> execution.
>>>
>>> So, in summary:
>>>
>>> * PRO - do not impose limitations on the way how Azure features can be
>>> driven via JClouds, because without this change one is forced to create a
>>> new deployment for every new virtual machine; moreover, even if I cannot
>>> find a specific reference in the documentation, it seems that you can only
>>> have a single deployment for deployment slot (e.g. "Production" or
>>> "Staging") which would mean that, in order to have 2 virtual machines, you
>>> need to have 2 distinct deployments in 2 distinct cloud services
>>>
>>> * CON - additional work for ensuring that all live tests are still
>>> working in this new configuration
>>>
>>> Fabio, Bhathiya, please correct / complete.
>>>
>>> Regarding promotion, we need to have the live tests passing (you did a
>>>> fantastic job here, so that's not going to be a problem!) and a way to
>>>> test it regularly. We have both requirements covered, so as soon as
>>>> the compute service implementation is completed, and stable we can
>>>> promote it.
>>>>
>>> Sounds good!
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> On 8 April 2015 at 11:42, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
>>>>> It does not complete issue 839. It only support
>>>>> GetCloudServiceProperties
>>>>> Operation. I will rebase it. Further I can work on JCLOUD-839( if no
>>>>> one
>>>>> working on it) .However do we need suport for all the operations? Shall
>>>>> we
>>>>> decide on what operations need to be supported
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
>>>>> It is complete and I'll have to rebase.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
>>>>> particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have finished working on AddRole opertaion. However it may require
>>>>> little
>>>>> bit of work to rebase. I'll continue workion on that if all are agreed
>>>>> with
>>>>> the proposed changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
>>>>> It is need to be rebased as well. There were few issues with live tests
>>>>> when I make the PR and I have now fixed it
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
>>>>> It is outdated and I'll close it
>>>>>
>>>>> what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider out of labs?
>>>>>
>>>>> should we support Operations on Autoscaling? [1]
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn510374.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8 April 2015 at 13:20, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> let's recap the situation, after a while.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Several pull requests have been merged in the meanwhile and now the
>>>>>> following issues are resolved:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. JCLOUDS-837
>>>>>> 2. JCLOUDS-838
>>>>>> 3. JCLOUDS-841
>>>>>> 4. JCLOUDS-842
>>>>>> 5. JCLOUDS-846
>>>>>> 6. JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moreover, the following PR are needed to be merged before continuing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. #156 (resolving JCLOUDS-850) - which should be merge any minute now,
>>>>>> but requires jclouds/jclouds#724 / JCLOUDS-876
>>>>>> 2. #161 that, besides resolving JCLOUDS-873, contains important
>>>>>> improvements for the live tests execution
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More PRs from Bhathiya are also waiting, but might require some rebase:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
>>>>>> 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
>>>>>> 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
>>>>>> particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
>>>>>> 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
>>>>>> 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any thoughts? Plans?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Side question: what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> of labs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25/03/2015 10:40, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Francesco, Fabio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have make a PR [1] with the propsed changes. With the changes we no
>>>>>>> longer assume deployment name and Cloudservice name are equal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> VirtualMachineToNodeMetadat can be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>>>>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.
>>>>>>> <http://from.name/>serviceName()).location())).orNull());
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However Add Role Operation [2] should be suppported in order to
>>>>>>> service
>>>>>>> adapter to be complete. Now I am working on that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please check my PR and update me on the way you would like to proceed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/157
>>>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24 March 2015 at 17:25, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Francesco, Fabilo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @ Francsco It must be <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>.
>>>>>>>> My
>>>>>>>> bad. What I was typing!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is mostly complete
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/hsbhathiya/jclouds-labs/commit/
>>>>>>>> cc24ecc201ff8a6740c232670be57dfc61745643
>>>>>>>> I'll be able to make the PR with in a day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @Fabio.
>>>>>>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that
>>>>>>>> deployment
>>>>>>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need
>>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>>>>>> Agree serviceName is an attribute in my VirtualMachine. However I
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> made the same (wrong) assumption when transforming
>>>>>>>> DeploymentsToVirtualMachines in my solution. I'll look for a
>>>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> May be we can get the cloud service from the Url of deployment
>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460804.aspx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Url
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Specifies the URL that is used to access the cloud service.For
>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> the service name is *MyService* you could access the access the
>>>>>>>> service
>>>>>>>> by calling: http://*MyService*.cloudapp.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have to check it though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24 March 2015 at 16:39, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Il 24/03/2015 11:22, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was finally able to spend some time to dive into this issue
>>>>>>>>>> (JCLOUDS-853, if I am not wrong).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is quite clear to me is that the current mapping between
>>>>>>>>>> Deployment
>>>>>>>>>> (azure domain) and NodeMetadata (jclouds domain) does not reflect
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>> how things are organized in Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact, after having created a cloud service (using the test code)
>>>>>>>>>> 'ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest', the deployment and the
>>>>>>>>>> virtual
>>>>>>>>>> machine with same name (using the code from one of live tests), I
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>> able to add a second virtual machine to the existing deployment by
>>>>>>>>>> POSTing
>>>>>>>>>> this payload [1] to this endpoint [2] (as explained in [3]).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I mostly agree with what you propose below, e.g.:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment
>>>>>>>>>> produces
>>>>>>>>>> list of virtual machines
>>>>>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,Location>"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I say "mostly" because I don't fully agree with last statement: I
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> have said instead
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> e.g. keeping RoleSize as class for listing hardware profiles.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have you already started working on this? How long do you think it
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> take to you to complete?
>>>>>>>>>> Consider that we already have a pending PR for JCLOUDS-850 and
>>>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>>>> new PR for JCLOUDS-849 should be ready by the end of this weel at
>>>>>>>>>> most.
>>>>>>>>>> Depending on timings, it might be an idea to rebase our work on
>>>>>>>>>> yours,
>>>>>>>>>> as opposite to what Fabio is proposing below.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, as per Francesco, I got your proposal: it sounds
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reasonable
>>>>>>>>> with me.
>>>>>>>>> You can proceed if you want but I have to ask you to take care to
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> Location/CloudService ID available to populate NodeMetadata object.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Currently, the deployment does not include the location among its
>>>>>>>>> properties: in order to set-up location for a new NodeMetadata
>>>>>>>>> object I
>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>> to retrieve this info asking for CloudService properties before.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Into the DeploymentToNodeMetadata, my temporary solution for the
>>>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>>>> is the following
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // TODO: CloudService name is required (see JCLOUDS-849): waiting
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-853.
>>>>>>>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>>>>>>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.name
>>>>>>>>> ()).location())).orNull());
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that
>>>>>>>>> deployment
>>>>>>>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need
>>>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please, let me have a feedback.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://paste.apache.org/gQoV
>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://management.core.windows.net/d6769fbe-4649-
>>>>>>>>>> 453f-8435-c07f0cc0709d/services/hostedservices/ilgrosso548-
>>>>>>>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/deployments/ilgrosso548-
>>>>>>>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/roles
>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/03/2015 17:35, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Fabio,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it. I
>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>> to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>> mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better. It'll be
>>>>>>>>>>> great if
>>>>>>>>>>> someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli <
>>>>>>>>>>> fabio.martelli@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> roleinststace.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My suggestion is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> produces
>>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of virtual machines
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Location> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change.Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion_r25013853
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask
>>>>>>>>>>>> you to
>>>>>>>>>>>> wait
>>>>>>>>>>>> for [1]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
>>>>>>>>>>>> * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every
>>>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> new PR
>>>>>>>>>>>> at the beginning of the next week.
>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hsbathiya@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data returned by the operation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #147
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reference at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Api
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks guys!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (#144):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> track
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TECH) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ot to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<mailto:ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peek on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> succeeding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Azure SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could wait
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>.
I just added https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/167.
I have resolved merge conflicts and made some changes in live test of
PR#144.
Shall we merge PR#167 now?
Regards.
On 14 April 2015 at 12:54, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi all,
> as you might have seen, the PR #161 was merged yesterday.
>
> How should we move forward?
>
> Bhathiya, do you have any news?
>
> Regards.
>
>
> On 10/04/2015 10:27, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/2015 22:58, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>
>>> I'd say the plan is to merge #161 first, to have a tested and working
>>> implementation of the compute service.
>>>
>>> Once that one is in, we can discuss about the convenience of changing
>>> the current model to have a better mapping from the jclouds "node"
>>> object to the Azure entities. Regarding this, we can not expect
>>> everyone to read the Azure API docs, so a summary of the motivation
>>> behind that change, an overview of the current vs the proposed model
>>> and the pros and cons of the change would be highly appreciated.
>>>
>>
>> Waiting for PR #161 to get merged, here's my view on the refactoring
>> proposed to have a 'better mapping from the jclouds "node" object to the
>> Azure entities', e.g. for the subject of Bhathiya's PR #157 (still without
>> a corresponding issue on JIRA, shouldn't we open it?).
>>
>> Currently there is a direct match between Deployment (Azure) and Node
>> (JClouds), by mean of DeploymentToNodeMetadata:
>>
>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/functions/
>> DeploymentToNodeMetadata.java
>>
>> However, in Azure a deployment can contain multiple virtual machines; the
>> current code makes instead assumption that a deployment contains a single
>> virtual machine, and uses the same name for both.
>>
>> For this reason Bhathiya is working for replacing
>> DeploymentToNodeMetadata with a new VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata, which
>> requires to implement the "Add Role" operation (as reported below) in order
>> to add "a Virtual Machine to a deployment of Virtual Machines", as reported
>> in
>>
>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>
>> Naturally, this modification has a significant impact on the live test
>> execution.
>>
>> So, in summary:
>>
>> * PRO - do not impose limitations on the way how Azure features can be
>> driven via JClouds, because without this change one is forced to create a
>> new deployment for every new virtual machine; moreover, even if I cannot
>> find a specific reference in the documentation, it seems that you can only
>> have a single deployment for deployment slot (e.g. "Production" or
>> "Staging") which would mean that, in order to have 2 virtual machines, you
>> need to have 2 distinct deployments in 2 distinct cloud services
>>
>> * CON - additional work for ensuring that all live tests are still
>> working in this new configuration
>>
>> Fabio, Bhathiya, please correct / complete.
>>
>> Regarding promotion, we need to have the live tests passing (you did a
>>> fantastic job here, so that's not going to be a problem!) and a way to
>>> test it regularly. We have both requirements covered, so as soon as
>>> the compute service implementation is completed, and stable we can
>>> promote it.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds good!
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> On 8 April 2015 at 11:42, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>
>>>> 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
>>>> It does not complete issue 839. It only support
>>>> GetCloudServiceProperties
>>>> Operation. I will rebase it. Further I can work on JCLOUD-839( if no
>>>> one
>>>> working on it) .However do we need suport for all the operations? Shall
>>>> we
>>>> decide on what operations need to be supported
>>>>
>>>> 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
>>>> It is complete and I'll have to rebase.
>>>>
>>>> 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
>>>> particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
>>>>
>>>> I have finished working on AddRole opertaion. However it may require
>>>> little
>>>> bit of work to rebase. I'll continue workion on that if all are agreed
>>>> with
>>>> the proposed changes.
>>>>
>>>> 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
>>>> It is need to be rebased as well. There were few issues with live tests
>>>> when I make the PR and I have now fixed it
>>>>
>>>> 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
>>>> It is outdated and I'll close it
>>>>
>>>> what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider out of labs?
>>>>
>>>> should we support Operations on Autoscaling? [1]
>>>>
>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn510374.aspx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8 April 2015 at 13:20, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> let's recap the situation, after a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> Several pull requests have been merged in the meanwhile and now the
>>>>> following issues are resolved:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. JCLOUDS-837
>>>>> 2. JCLOUDS-838
>>>>> 3. JCLOUDS-841
>>>>> 4. JCLOUDS-842
>>>>> 5. JCLOUDS-846
>>>>> 6. JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover, the following PR are needed to be merged before continuing:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. #156 (resolving JCLOUDS-850) - which should be merge any minute now,
>>>>> but requires jclouds/jclouds#724 / JCLOUDS-876
>>>>> 2. #161 that, besides resolving JCLOUDS-873, contains important
>>>>> improvements for the live tests execution
>>>>>
>>>>> More PRs from Bhathiya are also waiting, but might require some rebase:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
>>>>> 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
>>>>> 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
>>>>> particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
>>>>> 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
>>>>> 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts? Plans?
>>>>>
>>>>> Side question: what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider
>>>>> out
>>>>> of labs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25/03/2015 10:40, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Francesco, Fabio
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have make a PR [1] with the propsed changes. With the changes we no
>>>>>> longer assume deployment name and Cloudservice name are equal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> VirtualMachineToNodeMetadat can be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>>>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.
>>>>>> <http://from.name/>serviceName()).location())).orNull());
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However Add Role Operation [2] should be suppported in order to
>>>>>> service
>>>>>> adapter to be complete. Now I am working on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please check my PR and update me on the way you would like to proceed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/157
>>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24 March 2015 at 17:25, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Francesco, Fabilo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @ Francsco It must be <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>.
>>>>>>> My
>>>>>>> bad. What I was typing!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is mostly complete
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/hsbhathiya/jclouds-labs/commit/
>>>>>>> cc24ecc201ff8a6740c232670be57dfc61745643
>>>>>>> I'll be able to make the PR with in a day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Fabio.
>>>>>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that
>>>>>>> deployment
>>>>>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need
>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>>>>> Agree serviceName is an attribute in my VirtualMachine. However I
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> made the same (wrong) assumption when transforming
>>>>>>> DeploymentsToVirtualMachines in my solution. I'll look for a
>>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> May be we can get the cloud service from the Url of deployment
>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460804.aspx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Url
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specifies the URL that is used to access the cloud service.For
>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> the service name is *MyService* you could access the access the
>>>>>>> service
>>>>>>> by calling: http://*MyService*.cloudapp.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to check it though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24 March 2015 at 16:39, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Il 24/03/2015 11:22, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was finally able to spend some time to dive into this issue
>>>>>>>>> (JCLOUDS-853, if I am not wrong).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is quite clear to me is that the current mapping between
>>>>>>>>> Deployment
>>>>>>>>> (azure domain) and NodeMetadata (jclouds domain) does not reflect
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>> how things are organized in Azure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact, after having created a cloud service (using the test code)
>>>>>>>>> 'ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest', the deployment and the
>>>>>>>>> virtual
>>>>>>>>> machine with same name (using the code from one of live tests), I
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>> able to add a second virtual machine to the existing deployment by
>>>>>>>>> POSTing
>>>>>>>>> this payload [1] to this endpoint [2] (as explained in [3]).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I mostly agree with what you propose below, e.g.:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment
>>>>>>>>> produces
>>>>>>>>> list of virtual machines
>>>>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,Location>"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I say "mostly" because I don't fully agree with last statement: I
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> have said instead
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> e.g. keeping RoleSize as class for listing hardware profiles.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you already started working on this? How long do you think it
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> take to you to complete?
>>>>>>>>> Consider that we already have a pending PR for JCLOUDS-850 and
>>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>>> new PR for JCLOUDS-849 should be ready by the end of this weel at
>>>>>>>>> most.
>>>>>>>>> Depending on timings, it might be an idea to rebase our work on
>>>>>>>>> yours,
>>>>>>>>> as opposite to what Fabio is proposing below.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, as per Francesco, I got your proposal: it sounds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> reasonable
>>>>>>>> with me.
>>>>>>>> You can proceed if you want but I have to ask you to take care to
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>> Location/CloudService ID available to populate NodeMetadata object.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Currently, the deployment does not include the location among its
>>>>>>>> properties: in order to set-up location for a new NodeMetadata
>>>>>>>> object I
>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>> to retrieve this info asking for CloudService properties before.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Into the DeploymentToNodeMetadata, my temporary solution for the
>>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>>> is the following
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // TODO: CloudService name is required (see JCLOUDS-849): waiting
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-853.
>>>>>>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>>>>>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.name
>>>>>>>> ()).location())).orNull());
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that
>>>>>>>> deployment
>>>>>>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need
>>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please, let me have a feedback.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://paste.apache.org/gQoV
>>>>>>>>> [2] https://management.core.windows.net/d6769fbe-4649-
>>>>>>>>> 453f-8435-c07f0cc0709d/services/hostedservices/ilgrosso548-
>>>>>>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/deployments/ilgrosso548-
>>>>>>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/roles
>>>>>>>>> [3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 20/03/2015 17:35, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Fabio,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it. I
>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>> to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
>>>>>>>>>> mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better. It'll be
>>>>>>>>>> great if
>>>>>>>>>> someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli <
>>>>>>>>>> fabio.martelli@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure
>>>>>>>>>>>> API.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as
>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a
>>>>>>>>>>>> roleinststace.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My suggestion is to
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment
>>>>>>>>>>>> produces
>>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>>> of virtual machines
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>>>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Location> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However
>>>>>>>>>>>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> change.Any
>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion_r25013853
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested changes.
>>>>>>>>>>> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask
>>>>>>>>>>> you to
>>>>>>>>>>> wait
>>>>>>>>>>> for [1]:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
>>>>>>>>>>> * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every
>>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> new PR
>>>>>>>>>>> at the beginning of the next week.
>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hsbathiya@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> capture
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> data returned by the operation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #147
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reference at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Api
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks guys!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (#144):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> track
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TECH) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ot to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<mailto:ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peek on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> succeeding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Azure SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could wait
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
> http://www.tirasa.net/
>
> Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
> member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>
>
>
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
as you might have seen, the PR #161 was merged yesterday.
How should we move forward?
Bhathiya, do you have any news?
Regards.
On 10/04/2015 10:27, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
> On 08/04/2015 22:58, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>> I'd say the plan is to merge #161 first, to have a tested and working
>> implementation of the compute service.
>>
>> Once that one is in, we can discuss about the convenience of changing
>> the current model to have a better mapping from the jclouds "node"
>> object to the Azure entities. Regarding this, we can not expect
>> everyone to read the Azure API docs, so a summary of the motivation
>> behind that change, an overview of the current vs the proposed model
>> and the pros and cons of the change would be highly appreciated.
>
> Waiting for PR #161 to get merged, here's my view on the refactoring
> proposed to have a 'better mapping from the jclouds "node" object to
> the Azure entities', e.g. for the subject of Bhathiya's PR #157 (still
> without a corresponding issue on JIRA, shouldn't we open it?).
>
> Currently there is a direct match between Deployment (Azure) and Node
> (JClouds), by mean of DeploymentToNodeMetadata:
>
> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/functions/DeploymentToNodeMetadata.java
>
>
> However, in Azure a deployment can contain multiple virtual machines;
> the current code makes instead assumption that a deployment contains a
> single virtual machine, and uses the same name for both.
>
> For this reason Bhathiya is working for replacing
> DeploymentToNodeMetadata with a new VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata,
> which requires to implement the "Add Role" operation (as reported
> below) in order to add "a Virtual Machine to a deployment of Virtual
> Machines", as reported in
>
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>
> Naturally, this modification has a significant impact on the live test
> execution.
>
> So, in summary:
>
> * PRO - do not impose limitations on the way how Azure features can
> be driven via JClouds, because without this change one is forced to
> create a new deployment for every new virtual machine; moreover, even
> if I cannot find a specific reference in the documentation, it seems
> that you can only have a single deployment for deployment slot (e.g.
> "Production" or "Staging") which would mean that, in order to have 2
> virtual machines, you need to have 2 distinct deployments in 2
> distinct cloud services
>
> * CON - additional work for ensuring that all live tests are still
> working in this new configuration
>
> Fabio, Bhathiya, please correct / complete.
>
>> Regarding promotion, we need to have the live tests passing (you did a
>> fantastic job here, so that's not going to be a problem!) and a way to
>> test it regularly. We have both requirements covered, so as soon as
>> the compute service implementation is completed, and stable we can
>> promote it.
>
> Sounds good!
>
> Regards.
>
>> On 8 April 2015 at 11:42, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>
>>> 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
>>> It does not complete issue 839. It only support
>>> GetCloudServiceProperties
>>> Operation. I will rebase it. Further I can work on JCLOUD-839( if
>>> no one
>>> working on it) .However do we need suport for all the operations?
>>> Shall we
>>> decide on what operations need to be supported
>>>
>>> 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
>>> It is complete and I'll have to rebase.
>>>
>>> 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
>>> particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
>>>
>>> I have finished working on AddRole opertaion. However it may require
>>> little
>>> bit of work to rebase. I'll continue workion on that if all are
>>> agreed with
>>> the proposed changes.
>>>
>>> 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
>>> It is need to be rebased as well. There were few issues with live tests
>>> when I make the PR and I have now fixed it
>>>
>>> 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
>>> It is outdated and I'll close it
>>>
>>> what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider out of labs?
>>>
>>> should we support Operations on Autoscaling? [1]
>>>
>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn510374.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 April 2015 at 13:20, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> let's recap the situation, after a while.
>>>>
>>>> Several pull requests have been merged in the meanwhile and now the
>>>> following issues are resolved:
>>>>
>>>> 1. JCLOUDS-837
>>>> 2. JCLOUDS-838
>>>> 3. JCLOUDS-841
>>>> 4. JCLOUDS-842
>>>> 5. JCLOUDS-846
>>>> 6. JCLOUDS-849
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, the following PR are needed to be merged before continuing:
>>>>
>>>> 1. #156 (resolving JCLOUDS-850) - which should be merge any minute
>>>> now,
>>>> but requires jclouds/jclouds#724 / JCLOUDS-876
>>>> 2. #161 that, besides resolving JCLOUDS-873, contains important
>>>> improvements for the live tests execution
>>>>
>>>> More PRs from Bhathiya are also waiting, but might require some
>>>> rebase:
>>>>
>>>> 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
>>>> 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
>>>> 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
>>>> particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
>>>> 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
>>>> 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts? Plans?
>>>>
>>>> Side question: what is required to promote the Azure Compute
>>>> provider out
>>>> of labs?
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
>>>>
>>>> On 25/03/2015 10:40, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Francesco, Fabio
>>>>> I have make a PR [1] with the propsed changes. With the changes we no
>>>>> longer assume deployment name and Cloudservice name are equal.
>>>>>
>>>>> VirtualMachineToNodeMetadat can be
>>>>>
>>>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.
>>>>> <http://from.name/>serviceName()).location())).orNull());
>>>>>
>>>>> However Add Role Operation [2] should be suppported in order to
>>>>> service
>>>>> adapter to be complete. Now I am working on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please check my PR and update me on the way you would like to proceed
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/157
>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24 March 2015 at 17:25, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Francesco, Fabilo
>>>>>> @ Francsco It must be <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage,
>>>>>> Location>. My
>>>>>> bad. What I was typing!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is mostly complete
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/hsbhathiya/jclouds-labs/commit/
>>>>>> cc24ecc201ff8a6740c232670be57dfc61745643
>>>>>> I'll be able to make the PR with in a day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Fabio.
>>>>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that
>>>>>> deployment
>>>>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need
>>>>>> location
>>>>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>>>> Agree serviceName is an attribute in my VirtualMachine. However I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> made the same (wrong) assumption when transforming
>>>>>> DeploymentsToVirtualMachines in my solution. I'll look for a
>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> May be we can get the cloud service from the Url of deployment
>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460804.aspx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Url
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifies the URL that is used to access the cloud service.For
>>>>>> example,
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> the service name is *MyService* you could access the access the
>>>>>> service
>>>>>> by calling: http://*MyService*.cloudapp.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to check it though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24 March 2015 at 16:39, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Il 24/03/2015 11:22, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya,
>>>>>>>> I was finally able to spend some time to dive into this issue
>>>>>>>> (JCLOUDS-853, if I am not wrong).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is quite clear to me is that the current mapping between
>>>>>>>> Deployment
>>>>>>>> (azure domain) and NodeMetadata (jclouds domain) does not
>>>>>>>> reflect the
>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>> how things are organized in Azure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact, after having created a cloud service (using the test
>>>>>>>> code)
>>>>>>>> 'ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest', the deployment and the
>>>>>>>> virtual
>>>>>>>> machine with same name (using the code from one of live tests),
>>>>>>>> I was
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>> able to add a second virtual machine to the existing deployment by
>>>>>>>> POSTing
>>>>>>>> this payload [1] to this endpoint [2] (as explained in [3]).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I mostly agree with what you propose below, e.g.:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment
>>>>>>>> produces
>>>>>>>> list of virtual machines
>>>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,Location>"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I say "mostly" because I don't fully agree with last statement:
>>>>>>>> I would
>>>>>>>> have said instead
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> e.g. keeping RoleSize as class for listing hardware profiles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you already started working on this? How long do you think it
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> take to you to complete?
>>>>>>>> Consider that we already have a pending PR for JCLOUDS-850 and
>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>> new PR for JCLOUDS-849 should be ready by the end of this weel
>>>>>>>> at most.
>>>>>>>> Depending on timings, it might be an idea to rebase our work on
>>>>>>>> yours,
>>>>>>>> as opposite to what Fabio is proposing below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, as per Francesco, I got your proposal: it sounds
>>>>>>> reasonable
>>>>>>> with me.
>>>>>>> You can proceed if you want but I have to ask you to take care
>>>>>>> to make
>>>>>>> Location/CloudService ID available to populate NodeMetadata object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently, the deployment does not include the location among its
>>>>>>> properties: in order to set-up location for a new NodeMetadata
>>>>>>> object I
>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>> to retrieve this info asking for CloudService properties before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Into the DeploymentToNodeMetadata, my temporary solution for the
>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>> is the following
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // TODO: CloudService name is required (see JCLOUDS-849):
>>>>>>> waiting for
>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-853.
>>>>>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>>>>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.name
>>>>>>> ()).location())).orNull());
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that
>>>>>>> deployment
>>>>>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need
>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please, let me have a feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://paste.apache.org/gQoV
>>>>>>>> [2] https://management.core.windows.net/d6769fbe-4649-
>>>>>>>> 453f-8435-c07f0cc0709d/services/hostedservices/ilgrosso548-
>>>>>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/deployments/ilgrosso548-
>>>>>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/roles
>>>>>>>> [3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20/03/2015 17:35, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Fabio,
>>>>>>>>> I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it.
>>>>>>>>> I just
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
>>>>>>>>> mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better.
>>>>>>>>> It'll be
>>>>>>>>> great if
>>>>>>>>> someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli
>>>>>>>>> <fa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in
>>>>>>>>>>> azure API.
>>>>>>>>>>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit
>>>>>>>>>>> problematic as
>>>>>>>>>>> Azure
>>>>>>>>>>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to
>>>>>>>>>>> Node is the
>>>>>>>>>>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a
>>>>>>>>>>> roleinststace.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My suggestion is to
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment
>>>>>>>>>>> produces
>>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>> of virtual machines
>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,
>>>>>>>>>>> Location> "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this.
>>>>>>>>>>> However
>>>>>>>>>>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the
>>>>>>>>>>> change.Any
>>>>>>>>>>> thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>> discussion_r25013853
>>>>>>>>>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall
>>>>>>>>>>> impact of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> suggested changes.
>>>>>>>>>> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to
>>>>>>>>>> ask you to
>>>>>>>>>> wait
>>>>>>>>>> for [1]:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
>>>>>>>>>> * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every
>>>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to
>>>>>>>>>> submit the
>>>>>>>>>> new PR
>>>>>>>>>> at the beginning of the next week.
>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun
>>>>>>>>>> <hs...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet
>>>>>>>>>>>> to make
>>>>>>>>>>>> PR)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to
>>>>>>>>>>>> capture
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> data returned by the operation
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment
>>>>>>>>>>>> Operation [3]
>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] -
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] -
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] -
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> created PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> #147
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reference at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>>>>>>> below) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Api
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ML.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks guys!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (#144):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> track
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (MS OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TECH) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscribe ot to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efforts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-164 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135 rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peek on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> succeeding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spot these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Azure SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the REST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could wait
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Francesco had it mostly covered on the difference. In additon Virtual
Machine per Cloudservice would not support Availability sets therefore
Autoscaling. This article[1] brief azure thinking of cloud services.
[1] -
http://azure.microsoft.com/EN-US/documentation/articles/cloud-services-connect-virtual-machine/
On 10 April 2015 at 14:38, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On 10/04/2015 10:53, Andrea Turli wrote:
>
>> Francesco,
>>
>> thanks for your summary
>>
>> * PRO - do not impose limitations on the way how Azure features can be
>>> driven via JClouds, because without this change one is forced to create
>>> a new deployment for every new virtual machine; moreover, even if I
>>> cannot find a specific reference in the documentation, it seems that you
>>> can only have a single deployment for deployment slot (e.g. "Production"
>>> or "Staging") which would mean that, in order to have 2 virtual
>>> machines, you need to have 2 distinct deployments in 2 distinct cloud
>>> services
>>>
>> is there an extra cost/limitation for the end-user in having this kind of
>> approach?
>>
>
> No AFAICT, but I am definitely not an expert on Azure pricing :-)
>
> Moreover, I am not completely sure that this is not affecting Autoscaling:
>
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn510374.aspx
>
> Regards.
>
>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
> http://www.tirasa.net/
>
> Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
> member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>
>
>
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 10/04/2015 10:53, Andrea Turli wrote:
> Francesco,
>
> thanks for your summary
>
>> * PRO - do not impose limitations on the way how Azure features can be
>> driven via JClouds, because without this change one is forced to create
>> a new deployment for every new virtual machine; moreover, even if I
>> cannot find a specific reference in the documentation, it seems that you
>> can only have a single deployment for deployment slot (e.g. "Production"
>> or "Staging") which would mean that, in order to have 2 virtual
>> machines, you need to have 2 distinct deployments in 2 distinct cloud
>> services
> is there an extra cost/limitation for the end-user in having this kind of
> approach?
No AFAICT, but I am definitely not an expert on Azure pricing :-)
Moreover, I am not completely sure that this is not affecting Autoscaling:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn510374.aspx
Regards.
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Andrea Turli <an...@gmail.com>.
Francesco,
thanks for your summary
* PRO - do not impose limitations on the way how Azure features can be
> driven via JClouds, because without this change one is forced to create
> a new deployment for every new virtual machine; moreover, even if I
> cannot find a specific reference in the documentation, it seems that you
> can only have a single deployment for deployment slot (e.g. "Production"
> or "Staging") which would mean that, in order to have 2 virtual
> machines, you need to have 2 distinct deployments in 2 distinct cloud
> services
>
is there an extra cost/limitation for the end-user in having this kind of
approach?
Thanks,
Andrea
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
On 08/04/2015 22:58, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
> I'd say the plan is to merge #161 first, to have a tested and working
> implementation of the compute service.
>
> Once that one is in, we can discuss about the convenience of changing
> the current model to have a better mapping from the jclouds "node"
> object to the Azure entities. Regarding this, we can not expect
> everyone to read the Azure API docs, so a summary of the motivation
> behind that change, an overview of the current vs the proposed model
> and the pros and cons of the change would be highly appreciated.
Waiting for PR #161 to get merged, here's my view on the refactoring
proposed to have a 'better mapping from the jclouds "node" object to the
Azure entities', e.g. for the subject of Bhathiya's PR #157 (still
without a corresponding issue on JIRA, shouldn't we open it?).
Currently there is a direct match between Deployment (Azure) and Node
(JClouds), by mean of DeploymentToNodeMetadata:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/functions/DeploymentToNodeMetadata.java
However, in Azure a deployment can contain multiple virtual machines;
the current code makes instead assumption that a deployment contains a
single virtual machine, and uses the same name for both.
For this reason Bhathiya is working for replacing
DeploymentToNodeMetadata with a new VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata, which
requires to implement the "Add Role" operation (as reported below) in
order to add "a Virtual Machine to a deployment of Virtual Machines", as
reported in
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
Naturally, this modification has a significant impact on the live test
execution.
So, in summary:
* PRO - do not impose limitations on the way how Azure features can be
driven via JClouds, because without this change one is forced to create
a new deployment for every new virtual machine; moreover, even if I
cannot find a specific reference in the documentation, it seems that you
can only have a single deployment for deployment slot (e.g. "Production"
or "Staging") which would mean that, in order to have 2 virtual
machines, you need to have 2 distinct deployments in 2 distinct cloud
services
* CON - additional work for ensuring that all live tests are still
working in this new configuration
Fabio, Bhathiya, please correct / complete.
> Regarding promotion, we need to have the live tests passing (you did a
> fantastic job here, so that's not going to be a problem!) and a way to
> test it regularly. We have both requirements covered, so as soon as
> the compute service implementation is completed, and stable we can
> promote it.
Sounds good!
Regards.
> On 8 April 2015 at 11:42, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Francesco,
>>
>> 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
>> It does not complete issue 839. It only support GetCloudServiceProperties
>> Operation. I will rebase it. Further I can work on JCLOUD-839( if no one
>> working on it) .However do we need suport for all the operations? Shall we
>> decide on what operations need to be supported
>>
>> 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
>> It is complete and I'll have to rebase.
>>
>> 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
>> particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
>>
>> I have finished working on AddRole opertaion. However it may require little
>> bit of work to rebase. I'll continue workion on that if all are agreed with
>> the proposed changes.
>>
>> 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
>> It is need to be rebased as well. There were few issues with live tests
>> when I make the PR and I have now fixed it
>>
>> 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
>> It is outdated and I'll close it
>>
>> what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider out of labs?
>>
>> should we support Operations on Autoscaling? [1]
>>
>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn510374.aspx
>>
>>
>> On 8 April 2015 at 13:20, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> let's recap the situation, after a while.
>>>
>>> Several pull requests have been merged in the meanwhile and now the
>>> following issues are resolved:
>>>
>>> 1. JCLOUDS-837
>>> 2. JCLOUDS-838
>>> 3. JCLOUDS-841
>>> 4. JCLOUDS-842
>>> 5. JCLOUDS-846
>>> 6. JCLOUDS-849
>>>
>>> Moreover, the following PR are needed to be merged before continuing:
>>>
>>> 1. #156 (resolving JCLOUDS-850) - which should be merge any minute now,
>>> but requires jclouds/jclouds#724 / JCLOUDS-876
>>> 2. #161 that, besides resolving JCLOUDS-873, contains important
>>> improvements for the live tests execution
>>>
>>> More PRs from Bhathiya are also waiting, but might require some rebase:
>>>
>>> 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
>>> 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
>>> 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
>>> particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
>>> 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
>>> 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
>>>
>>> Any thoughts? Plans?
>>>
>>> Side question: what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider out
>>> of labs?
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> On 25/03/2015 10:40, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Francesco, Fabio
>>>> I have make a PR [1] with the propsed changes. With the changes we no
>>>> longer assume deployment name and Cloudservice name are equal.
>>>>
>>>> VirtualMachineToNodeMetadat can be
>>>>
>>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.
>>>> <http://from.name/>serviceName()).location())).orNull());
>>>>
>>>> However Add Role Operation [2] should be suppported in order to service
>>>> adapter to be complete. Now I am working on that.
>>>>
>>>> Please check my PR and update me on the way you would like to proceed
>>>>
>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/157
>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24 March 2015 at 17:25, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Francesco, Fabilo
>>>>> @ Francsco It must be <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>. My
>>>>> bad. What I was typing!
>>>>>
>>>>> It is mostly complete
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/hsbhathiya/jclouds-labs/commit/
>>>>> cc24ecc201ff8a6740c232670be57dfc61745643
>>>>> I'll be able to make the PR with in a day.
>>>>>
>>>>> @Fabio.
>>>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
>>>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
>>>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>>> Agree serviceName is an attribute in my VirtualMachine. However I have
>>>>> made the same (wrong) assumption when transforming
>>>>> DeploymentsToVirtualMachines in my solution. I'll look for a solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> May be we can get the cloud service from the Url of deployment
>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460804.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>> Url
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifies the URL that is used to access the cloud service.For example,
>>>>> if
>>>>> the service name is *MyService* you could access the access the service
>>>>> by calling: http://*MyService*.cloudapp.net
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to check it though.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24 March 2015 at 16:39, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Il 24/03/2015 11:22, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya,
>>>>>>> I was finally able to spend some time to dive into this issue
>>>>>>> (JCLOUDS-853, if I am not wrong).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is quite clear to me is that the current mapping between
>>>>>>> Deployment
>>>>>>> (azure domain) and NodeMetadata (jclouds domain) does not reflect the
>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>> how things are organized in Azure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact, after having created a cloud service (using the test code)
>>>>>>> 'ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest', the deployment and the
>>>>>>> virtual
>>>>>>> machine with same name (using the code from one of live tests), I was
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>> able to add a second virtual machine to the existing deployment by
>>>>>>> POSTing
>>>>>>> this payload [1] to this endpoint [2] (as explained in [3]).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I mostly agree with what you propose below, e.g.:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>>>>>> list of virtual machines
>>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,Location>"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I say "mostly" because I don't fully agree with last statement: I would
>>>>>>> have said instead
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> e.g. keeping RoleSize as class for listing hardware profiles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you already started working on this? How long do you think it
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> take to you to complete?
>>>>>>> Consider that we already have a pending PR for JCLOUDS-850 and that a
>>>>>>> new PR for JCLOUDS-849 should be ready by the end of this weel at most.
>>>>>>> Depending on timings, it might be an idea to rebase our work on yours,
>>>>>>> as opposite to what Fabio is proposing below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, as per Francesco, I got your proposal: it sounds
>>>>>> reasonable
>>>>>> with me.
>>>>>> You can proceed if you want but I have to ask you to take care to make
>>>>>> Location/CloudService ID available to populate NodeMetadata object.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently, the deployment does not include the location among its
>>>>>> properties: in order to set-up location for a new NodeMetadata object I
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> to retrieve this info asking for CloudService properties before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Into the DeploymentToNodeMetadata, my temporary solution for the
>>>>>> location
>>>>>> is the following
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // TODO: CloudService name is required (see JCLOUDS-849): waiting for
>>>>>> JCLOUDS-853.
>>>>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>>>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.name
>>>>>> ()).location())).orNull());
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
>>>>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
>>>>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please, let me have a feedback.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://paste.apache.org/gQoV
>>>>>>> [2] https://management.core.windows.net/d6769fbe-4649-
>>>>>>> 453f-8435-c07f0cc0709d/services/hostedservices/ilgrosso548-
>>>>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/deployments/ilgrosso548-
>>>>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/roles
>>>>>>> [3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20/03/2015 17:35, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Fabio,
>>>>>>>> I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it. I just
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
>>>>>>>> mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better. It'll be
>>>>>>>> great if
>>>>>>>> someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure API.
>>>>>>>>>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as
>>>>>>>>>> Azure
>>>>>>>>>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node is the
>>>>>>>>>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a roleinststace.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My suggestion is to
>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>> of virtual machines
>>>>>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,
>>>>>>>>>> Location> "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this.
>>>>>>>>>> However
>>>>>>>>>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the
>>>>>>>>>> change.Any
>>>>>>>>>> thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>> discussion_r25013853
>>>>>>>>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> suggested changes.
>>>>>>>>> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask you to
>>>>>>>>> wait
>>>>>>>>> for [1]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
>>>>>>>>> * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every future
>>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit the
>>>>>>>>> new PR
>>>>>>>>> at the beginning of the next week.
>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>>>>>>>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to make
>>>>>>>>>>> PR)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>>>>>>>>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to capture
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> data returned by the operation
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation [3]
>>>>>>>>>>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> created PR
>>>>>>>>>>>> #147
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API
>>>>>>>>>>>> Reference at
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said
>>>>>>>>>>>> below) in
>>>>>>>>>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Api
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks guys!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TECH) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Azure SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Ignasi Barrera <na...@apache.org>.
I'd say the plan is to merge #161 first, to have a tested and working
implementation of the compute service.
Once that one is in, we can discuss about the convenience of changing
the current model to have a better mapping from the jclouds "node"
object to the Azure entities. Regarding this, we can not expect
everyone to read the Azure API docs, so a summary of the motivation
behind that change, an overview of the current vs the proposed model
and the pros and cons of the change would be highly appreciated.
Regarding promotion, we need to have the live tests passing (you did a
fantastic job here, so that's not going to be a problem!) and a way to
test it regularly. We have both requirements covered, so as soon as
the compute service implementation is completed, and stable we can
promote it.
On 8 April 2015 at 11:42, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Francesco,
>
> 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
> It does not complete issue 839. It only support GetCloudServiceProperties
> Operation. I will rebase it. Further I can work on JCLOUD-839( if no one
> working on it) .However do we need suport for all the operations? Shall we
> decide on what operations need to be supported
>
> 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
> It is complete and I'll have to rebase.
>
> 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
> particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
>
> I have finished working on AddRole opertaion. However it may require little
> bit of work to rebase. I'll continue workion on that if all are agreed with
> the proposed changes.
>
> 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
> It is need to be rebased as well. There were few issues with live tests
> when I make the PR and I have now fixed it
>
> 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
> It is outdated and I'll close it
>
> what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider out of labs?
>
> should we support Operations on Autoscaling? [1]
>
> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn510374.aspx
>
>
> On 8 April 2015 at 13:20, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> let's recap the situation, after a while.
>>
>> Several pull requests have been merged in the meanwhile and now the
>> following issues are resolved:
>>
>> 1. JCLOUDS-837
>> 2. JCLOUDS-838
>> 3. JCLOUDS-841
>> 4. JCLOUDS-842
>> 5. JCLOUDS-846
>> 6. JCLOUDS-849
>>
>> Moreover, the following PR are needed to be merged before continuing:
>>
>> 1. #156 (resolving JCLOUDS-850) - which should be merge any minute now,
>> but requires jclouds/jclouds#724 / JCLOUDS-876
>> 2. #161 that, besides resolving JCLOUDS-873, contains important
>> improvements for the live tests execution
>>
>> More PRs from Bhathiya are also waiting, but might require some rebase:
>>
>> 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
>> 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
>> 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
>> particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
>> 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
>> 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
>>
>> Any thoughts? Plans?
>>
>> Side question: what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider out
>> of labs?
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> On 25/03/2015 10:40, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>
>> Hi Francesco, Fabio
>>>
>>> I have make a PR [1] with the propsed changes. With the changes we no
>>> longer assume deployment name and Cloudservice name are equal.
>>>
>>> VirtualMachineToNodeMetadat can be
>>>
>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.
>>> <http://from.name/>serviceName()).location())).orNull());
>>>
>>> However Add Role Operation [2] should be suppported in order to service
>>> adapter to be complete. Now I am working on that.
>>>
>>> Please check my PR and update me on the way you would like to proceed
>>>
>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/157
>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 March 2015 at 17:25, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Francesco, Fabilo
>>>>
>>>> @ Francsco It must be <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>. My
>>>> bad. What I was typing!
>>>>
>>>> It is mostly complete
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/hsbhathiya/jclouds-labs/commit/
>>>> cc24ecc201ff8a6740c232670be57dfc61745643
>>>> I'll be able to make the PR with in a day.
>>>>
>>>> @Fabio.
>>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
>>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
>>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>> Agree serviceName is an attribute in my VirtualMachine. However I have
>>>> made the same (wrong) assumption when transforming
>>>> DeploymentsToVirtualMachines in my solution. I'll look for a solution.
>>>>
>>>> May be we can get the cloud service from the Url of deployment
>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460804.aspx
>>>>
>>>> Url
>>>>
>>>> Specifies the URL that is used to access the cloud service.For example,
>>>> if
>>>> the service name is *MyService* you could access the access the service
>>>> by calling: http://*MyService*.cloudapp.net
>>>>
>>>> I have to check it though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 24 March 2015 at 16:39, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Il 24/03/2015 11:22, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Bhathiya,
>>>>>> I was finally able to spend some time to dive into this issue
>>>>>> (JCLOUDS-853, if I am not wrong).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is quite clear to me is that the current mapping between
>>>>>> Deployment
>>>>>> (azure domain) and NodeMetadata (jclouds domain) does not reflect the
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> how things are organized in Azure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, after having created a cloud service (using the test code)
>>>>>> 'ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest', the deployment and the
>>>>>> virtual
>>>>>> machine with same name (using the code from one of live tests), I was
>>>>>> also
>>>>>> able to add a second virtual machine to the existing deployment by
>>>>>> POSTing
>>>>>> this payload [1] to this endpoint [2] (as explained in [3]).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mostly agree with what you propose below, e.g.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>>>>> list of virtual machines
>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,Location>"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I say "mostly" because I don't fully agree with last statement: I would
>>>>>> have said instead
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> e.g. keeping RoleSize as class for listing hardware profiles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you already started working on this? How long do you think it
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> take to you to complete?
>>>>>> Consider that we already have a pending PR for JCLOUDS-850 and that a
>>>>>> new PR for JCLOUDS-849 should be ready by the end of this weel at most.
>>>>>> Depending on timings, it might be an idea to rebase our work on yours,
>>>>>> as opposite to what Fabio is proposing below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, as per Francesco, I got your proposal: it sounds
>>>>> reasonable
>>>>> with me.
>>>>> You can proceed if you want but I have to ask you to take care to make
>>>>> Location/CloudService ID available to populate NodeMetadata object.
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently, the deployment does not include the location among its
>>>>> properties: in order to set-up location for a new NodeMetadata object I
>>>>> had
>>>>> to retrieve this info asking for CloudService properties before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Into the DeploymentToNodeMetadata, my temporary solution for the
>>>>> location
>>>>> is the following
>>>>>
>>>>> // TODO: CloudService name is required (see JCLOUDS-849): waiting for
>>>>> JCLOUDS-853.
>>>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.name
>>>>> ()).location())).orNull());
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
>>>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
>>>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, let me have a feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> F.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://paste.apache.org/gQoV
>>>>>> [2] https://management.core.windows.net/d6769fbe-4649-
>>>>>> 453f-8435-c07f0cc0709d/services/hostedservices/ilgrosso548-
>>>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/deployments/ilgrosso548-
>>>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/roles
>>>>>> [3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20/03/2015 17:35, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Fabio,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it. I just
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
>>>>>>> mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better. It'll be
>>>>>>> great if
>>>>>>> someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure API.
>>>>>>>>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as
>>>>>>>>> Azure
>>>>>>>>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node is the
>>>>>>>>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a roleinststace.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My suggestion is to
>>>>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>> of virtual machines
>>>>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,
>>>>>>>>> Location> "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this.
>>>>>>>>> However
>>>>>>>>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the
>>>>>>>>> change.Any
>>>>>>>>> thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>> discussion_r25013853
>>>>>>>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> suggested changes.
>>>>>>>> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask you to
>>>>>>>> wait
>>>>>>>> for [1]:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
>>>>>>>> * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every future
>>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit the
>>>>>>>> new PR
>>>>>>>> at the beginning of the next week.
>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to make
>>>>>>>>>> PR)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>>>>>>>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to capture
>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> data returned by the operation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation [3]
>>>>>>>>>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>>>>>>>>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and
>>>>>>>>>>> created PR
>>>>>>>>>>> #147
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API
>>>>>>>>>>> Reference at
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said
>>>>>>>>>>> below) in
>>>>>>>>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in
>>>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>>> Api
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks guys!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144):
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TECH) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Azure SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>
>> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
>> http://www.tirasa.net/
>>
>> Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
>> member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
>> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>>
>>
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>.
Hi Francesco,
1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
It does not complete issue 839. It only support GetCloudServiceProperties
Operation. I will rebase it. Further I can work on JCLOUD-839( if no one
working on it) .However do we need suport for all the operations? Shall we
decide on what operations need to be supported
2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
It is complete and I'll have to rebase.
3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
I have finished working on AddRole opertaion. However it may require little
bit of work to rebase. I'll continue workion on that if all are agreed with
the proposed changes.
4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
It is need to be rebased as well. There were few issues with live tests
when I make the PR and I have now fixed it
5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
It is outdated and I'll close it
what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider out of labs?
should we support Operations on Autoscaling? [1]
[1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn510374.aspx
On 8 April 2015 at 13:20, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi all,
> let's recap the situation, after a while.
>
> Several pull requests have been merged in the meanwhile and now the
> following issues are resolved:
>
> 1. JCLOUDS-837
> 2. JCLOUDS-838
> 3. JCLOUDS-841
> 4. JCLOUDS-842
> 5. JCLOUDS-846
> 6. JCLOUDS-849
>
> Moreover, the following PR are needed to be merged before continuing:
>
> 1. #156 (resolving JCLOUDS-850) - which should be merge any minute now,
> but requires jclouds/jclouds#724 / JCLOUDS-876
> 2. #161 that, besides resolving JCLOUDS-873, contains important
> improvements for the live tests execution
>
> More PRs from Bhathiya are also waiting, but might require some rebase:
>
> 1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
> 2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
> 3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
> particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
> 4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
> 5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
>
> Any thoughts? Plans?
>
> Side question: what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider out
> of labs?
>
> Regards.
>
> On 25/03/2015 10:40, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>
> Hi Francesco, Fabio
>>
>> I have make a PR [1] with the propsed changes. With the changes we no
>> longer assume deployment name and Cloudservice name are equal.
>>
>> VirtualMachineToNodeMetadat can be
>>
>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.
>> <http://from.name/>serviceName()).location())).orNull());
>>
>> However Add Role Operation [2] should be suppported in order to service
>> adapter to be complete. Now I am working on that.
>>
>> Please check my PR and update me on the way you would like to proceed
>>
>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/157
>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>
>>
>> On 24 March 2015 at 17:25, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Francesco, Fabilo
>>>
>>> @ Francsco It must be <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>. My
>>> bad. What I was typing!
>>>
>>> It is mostly complete
>>>
>>> https://github.com/hsbhathiya/jclouds-labs/commit/
>>> cc24ecc201ff8a6740c232670be57dfc61745643
>>> I'll be able to make the PR with in a day.
>>>
>>> @Fabio.
>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>> Agree serviceName is an attribute in my VirtualMachine. However I have
>>> made the same (wrong) assumption when transforming
>>> DeploymentsToVirtualMachines in my solution. I'll look for a solution.
>>>
>>> May be we can get the cloud service from the Url of deployment
>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460804.aspx
>>>
>>> Url
>>>
>>> Specifies the URL that is used to access the cloud service.For example,
>>> if
>>> the service name is *MyService* you could access the access the service
>>> by calling: http://*MyService*.cloudapp.net
>>>
>>> I have to check it though.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24 March 2015 at 16:39, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Il 24/03/2015 11:22, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Bhathiya,
>>>>> I was finally able to spend some time to dive into this issue
>>>>> (JCLOUDS-853, if I am not wrong).
>>>>>
>>>>> What is quite clear to me is that the current mapping between
>>>>> Deployment
>>>>> (azure domain) and NodeMetadata (jclouds domain) does not reflect the
>>>>> way
>>>>> how things are organized in Azure.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, after having created a cloud service (using the test code)
>>>>> 'ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest', the deployment and the
>>>>> virtual
>>>>> machine with same name (using the code from one of live tests), I was
>>>>> also
>>>>> able to add a second virtual machine to the existing deployment by
>>>>> POSTing
>>>>> this payload [1] to this endpoint [2] (as explained in [3]).
>>>>>
>>>>> I mostly agree with what you propose below, e.g.:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>>>> list of virtual machines
>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,Location>"
>>>>>
>>>>> I say "mostly" because I don't fully agree with last statement: I would
>>>>> have said instead
>>>>>
>>>>> <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>
>>>>>
>>>>> e.g. keeping RoleSize as class for listing hardware profiles.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you already started working on this? How long do you think it
>>>>> would
>>>>> take to you to complete?
>>>>> Consider that we already have a pending PR for JCLOUDS-850 and that a
>>>>> new PR for JCLOUDS-849 should be ready by the end of this weel at most.
>>>>> Depending on timings, it might be an idea to rebase our work on yours,
>>>>> as opposite to what Fabio is proposing below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, as per Francesco, I got your proposal: it sounds
>>>> reasonable
>>>> with me.
>>>> You can proceed if you want but I have to ask you to take care to make
>>>> Location/CloudService ID available to populate NodeMetadata object.
>>>>
>>>> Currently, the deployment does not include the location among its
>>>> properties: in order to set-up location for a new NodeMetadata object I
>>>> had
>>>> to retrieve this info asking for CloudService properties before.
>>>>
>>>> Into the DeploymentToNodeMetadata, my temporary solution for the
>>>> location
>>>> is the following
>>>>
>>>> // TODO: CloudService name is required (see JCLOUDS-849): waiting for
>>>> JCLOUDS-853.
>>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.name
>>>> ()).location())).orNull());
>>>>
>>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
>>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
>>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>>
>>>> Please, let me have a feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> F.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://paste.apache.org/gQoV
>>>>> [2] https://management.core.windows.net/d6769fbe-4649-
>>>>> 453f-8435-c07f0cc0709d/services/hostedservices/ilgrosso548-
>>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/deployments/ilgrosso548-
>>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/roles
>>>>> [3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20/03/2015 17:35, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Fabio,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it. I just
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
>>>>>> mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better. It'll be
>>>>>> great if
>>>>>> someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure API.
>>>>>>>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as
>>>>>>>> Azure
>>>>>>>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node is the
>>>>>>>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a roleinststace.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My suggestion is to
>>>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>> of virtual machines
>>>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,
>>>>>>>> Location> "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this.
>>>>>>>> However
>>>>>>>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the
>>>>>>>> change.Any
>>>>>>>> thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>> discussion_r25013853
>>>>>>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> suggested changes.
>>>>>>> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask you to
>>>>>>> wait
>>>>>>> for [1]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
>>>>>>> * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every future
>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit the
>>>>>>> new PR
>>>>>>> at the beginning of the next week.
>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to make
>>>>>>>>> PR)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>>>>>>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to capture
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> data returned by the operation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation [3]
>>>>>>>>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>>>>>>>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and
>>>>>>>>>> created PR
>>>>>>>>>> #147
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API
>>>>>>>>>> Reference at
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said
>>>>>>>>>> below) in
>>>>>>>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in
>>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>>> Api
>>>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks guys!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities
>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end
>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144):
>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <
>>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TECH) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Azure SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
> http://www.tirasa.net/
>
> Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
> member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>
>
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
let's recap the situation, after a while.
Several pull requests have been merged in the meanwhile and now the
following issues are resolved:
1. JCLOUDS-837
2. JCLOUDS-838
3. JCLOUDS-841
4. JCLOUDS-842
5. JCLOUDS-846
6. JCLOUDS-849
Moreover, the following PR are needed to be merged before continuing:
1. #156 (resolving JCLOUDS-850) - which should be merge any minute now,
but requires jclouds/jclouds#724 / JCLOUDS-876
2. #161 that, besides resolving JCLOUDS-873, contains important
improvements for the live tests execution
More PRs from Bhathiya are also waiting, but might require some rebase:
1. #155 (for JCLOUDS-839) - is it complete?
2. #154 (for JCLOUDS-853) - is it complete?
3. #157 (no subtask of JCLOUDS-664 for this?) - is this complete? In
particular, is support for "Add Role Operation" yet to be added?
4. #144 (for JCLOUDS-852?) - is it complete?
5. #118 - which seems to be outdated: shall we just close it?
Any thoughts? Plans?
Side question: what is required to promote the Azure Compute provider
out of labs?
Regards.
On 25/03/2015 10:40, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
> Hi Francesco, Fabio
>
> I have make a PR [1] with the propsed changes. With the changes we no
> longer assume deployment name and Cloudservice name are equal.
>
> VirtualMachineToNodeMetadat can be
>
> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.
> <http://from.name/>serviceName()).location())).orNull());
>
> However Add Role Operation [2] should be suppported in order to service
> adapter to be complete. Now I am working on that.
>
> Please check my PR and update me on the way you would like to proceed
>
> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/157
> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>
>
> On 24 March 2015 at 17:25, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Francesco, Fabilo
>>
>> @ Francsco It must be <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>. My
>> bad. What I was typing!
>>
>> It is mostly complete
>>
>> https://github.com/hsbhathiya/jclouds-labs/commit/cc24ecc201ff8a6740c232670be57dfc61745643
>> I'll be able to make the PR with in a day.
>>
>> @Fabio.
>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>> Agree serviceName is an attribute in my VirtualMachine. However I have
>> made the same (wrong) assumption when transforming
>> DeploymentsToVirtualMachines in my solution. I'll look for a solution.
>>
>> May be we can get the cloud service from the Url of deployment
>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460804.aspx
>>
>> Url
>>
>> Specifies the URL that is used to access the cloud service.For example, if
>> the service name is *MyService* you could access the access the service
>> by calling: http://*MyService*.cloudapp.net
>> I have to check it though.
>>
>>
>> On 24 March 2015 at 16:39, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Il 24/03/2015 11:22, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Hi Bhathiya,
>>>> I was finally able to spend some time to dive into this issue
>>>> (JCLOUDS-853, if I am not wrong).
>>>>
>>>> What is quite clear to me is that the current mapping between Deployment
>>>> (azure domain) and NodeMetadata (jclouds domain) does not reflect the way
>>>> how things are organized in Azure.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, after having created a cloud service (using the test code)
>>>> 'ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest', the deployment and the virtual
>>>> machine with same name (using the code from one of live tests), I was also
>>>> able to add a second virtual machine to the existing deployment by POSTing
>>>> this payload [1] to this endpoint [2] (as explained in [3]).
>>>>
>>>> I mostly agree with what you propose below, e.g.:
>>>>
>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>>> list of virtual machines
>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>> RoleList,OSImage,Location>"
>>>>
>>>> I say "mostly" because I don't fully agree with last statement: I would
>>>> have said instead
>>>>
>>>> <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>
>>>>
>>>> e.g. keeping RoleSize as class for listing hardware profiles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have you already started working on this? How long do you think it would
>>>> take to you to complete?
>>>> Consider that we already have a pending PR for JCLOUDS-850 and that a
>>>> new PR for JCLOUDS-849 should be ready by the end of this weel at most.
>>>> Depending on timings, it might be an idea to rebase our work on yours,
>>>> as opposite to what Fabio is proposing below.
>>>>
>>> Hi Bhathiya, as per Francesco, I got your proposal: it sounds reasonable
>>> with me.
>>> You can proceed if you want but I have to ask you to take care to make
>>> Location/CloudService ID available to populate NodeMetadata object.
>>>
>>> Currently, the deployment does not include the location among its
>>> properties: in order to set-up location for a new NodeMetadata object I had
>>> to retrieve this info asking for CloudService properties before.
>>>
>>> Into the DeploymentToNodeMetadata, my temporary solution for the location
>>> is the following
>>>
>>> // TODO: CloudService name is required (see JCLOUDS-849): waiting for
>>> JCLOUDS-853.
>>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.name
>>> ()).location())).orNull());
>>>
>>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
>>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
>>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>>
>>> Please, let me have a feedback.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> F.
>>>
>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>>> Regards.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://paste.apache.org/gQoV
>>>> [2] https://management.core.windows.net/d6769fbe-4649-
>>>> 453f-8435-c07f0cc0709d/services/hostedservices/ilgrosso548-
>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/deployments/ilgrosso548-
>>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/roles
>>>> [3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>
>>>> On 20/03/2015 17:35, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Fabio,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it. I just
>>>>> need
>>>>> to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
>>>>> mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better. It'll be
>>>>> great if
>>>>> someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
>>>>>>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure API.
>>>>>>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as Azure
>>>>>>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node is the
>>>>>>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a roleinststace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My suggestion is to
>>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>> of virtual machines
>>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,
>>>>>>> Location> "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this.
>>>>>>> However
>>>>>>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the
>>>>>>> change.Any
>>>>>>> thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>> discussion_r25013853
>>>>>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact of the
>>>>>> suggested changes.
>>>>>> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask you to
>>>>>> wait
>>>>>> for [1]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
>>>>>> * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every future
>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit the
>>>>>> new PR
>>>>>> at the beginning of the next week.
>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to make PR)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>>>>>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to capture all
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> data returned by the operation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation [3]
>>>>>>>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>>>>>>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and
>>>>>>>>> created PR
>>>>>>>>> #147
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API
>>>>>>>>> Reference at
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said
>>>>>>>>> below) in
>>>>>>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in
>>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>>> Api
>>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development.
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks guys!
>>>>>>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities
>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end up
>>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144):
>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <
>>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are sent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TECH) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Azure SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>.
Hi Francesco, Fabio
I have make a PR [1] with the propsed changes. With the changes we no
longer assume deployment name and Cloudservice name are equal.
VirtualMachineToNodeMetadat can be
builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.
<http://from.name/>serviceName()).location())).orNull());
However Add Role Operation [2] should be suppported in order to service
adapter to be complete. Now I am working on that.
Please check my PR and update me on the way you would like to proceed
[1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/157
[2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
On 24 March 2015 at 17:25, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Francesco, Fabilo
>
> @ Francsco It must be <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>. My
> bad. What I was typing!
>
> It is mostly complete
>
> https://github.com/hsbhathiya/jclouds-labs/commit/cc24ecc201ff8a6740c232670be57dfc61745643
> I'll be able to make the PR with in a day.
>
> @Fabio.
> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
> directly available or CloudService name instead.
> Agree serviceName is an attribute in my VirtualMachine. However I have
> made the same (wrong) assumption when transforming
> DeploymentsToVirtualMachines in my solution. I'll look for a solution.
>
> May be we can get the cloud service from the Url of deployment
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460804.aspx
>
> Url
>
> Specifies the URL that is used to access the cloud service.For example, if
> the service name is *MyService* you could access the access the service
> by calling: http://*MyService*.cloudapp.net
> I have to check it though.
>
>
> On 24 March 2015 at 16:39, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Il 24/03/2015 11:22, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
>>
>>> Hi Bhathiya,
>>> I was finally able to spend some time to dive into this issue
>>> (JCLOUDS-853, if I am not wrong).
>>>
>>> What is quite clear to me is that the current mapping between Deployment
>>> (azure domain) and NodeMetadata (jclouds domain) does not reflect the way
>>> how things are organized in Azure.
>>>
>>> In fact, after having created a cloud service (using the test code)
>>> 'ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest', the deployment and the virtual
>>> machine with same name (using the code from one of live tests), I was also
>>> able to add a second virtual machine to the existing deployment by POSTing
>>> this payload [1] to this endpoint [2] (as explained in [3]).
>>>
>>> I mostly agree with what you propose below, e.g.:
>>>
>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>> list of virtual machines
>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>> RoleList,OSImage,Location>"
>>>
>>> I say "mostly" because I don't fully agree with last statement: I would
>>> have said instead
>>>
>>> <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>
>>>
>>> e.g. keeping RoleSize as class for listing hardware profiles.
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you already started working on this? How long do you think it would
>>> take to you to complete?
>>> Consider that we already have a pending PR for JCLOUDS-850 and that a
>>> new PR for JCLOUDS-849 should be ready by the end of this weel at most.
>>> Depending on timings, it might be an idea to rebase our work on yours,
>>> as opposite to what Fabio is proposing below.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Bhathiya, as per Francesco, I got your proposal: it sounds reasonable
>> with me.
>> You can proceed if you want but I have to ask you to take care to make
>> Location/CloudService ID available to populate NodeMetadata object.
>>
>> Currently, the deployment does not include the location among its
>> properties: in order to set-up location for a new NodeMetadata object I had
>> to retrieve this info asking for CloudService properties before.
>>
>> Into the DeploymentToNodeMetadata, my temporary solution for the location
>> is the following
>>
>> // TODO: CloudService name is required (see JCLOUDS-849): waiting for
>> JCLOUDS-853.
>> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
>> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.name
>> ()).location())).orNull());
>>
>> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
>> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
>> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>>
>> Please, let me have a feedback.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> F.
>>
>>
>>> WDYT?
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> [1] https://paste.apache.org/gQoV
>>> [2] https://management.core.windows.net/d6769fbe-4649-
>>> 453f-8435-c07f0cc0709d/services/hostedservices/ilgrosso548-
>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/deployments/ilgrosso548-
>>> virtualmachineapilivetest/roles
>>> [3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>
>>> On 20/03/2015 17:35, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Fabio,
>>>>
>>>> I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it. I just
>>>> need
>>>> to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
>>>> mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better. It'll be
>>>> great if
>>>> someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
>>>>
>>>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
>>>>>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure API.
>>>>>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as Azure
>>>>>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node is the
>>>>>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a roleinststace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My suggestion is to
>>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>>>>> list
>>>>>> of virtual machines
>>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,
>>>>>> Location> "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this.
>>>>>> However
>>>>>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the
>>>>>> change.Any
>>>>>> thoughts on this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>> discussion_r25013853
>>>>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact of the
>>>>> suggested changes.
>>>>> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask you to
>>>>> wait
>>>>> for [1]:
>>>>>
>>>>> * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
>>>>> * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every future
>>>>> change.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit the
>>>>> new PR
>>>>> at the beginning of the next week.
>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> F.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to make PR)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>>>>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to capture all
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> data returned by the operation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation [3]
>>>>>>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>>>>>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and
>>>>>>>> created PR
>>>>>>>> #147
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API
>>>>>>>> Reference at
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said
>>>>>>>> below) in
>>>>>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in
>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>> Api
>>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get
>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development.
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks guys!
>>>>>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities
>>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end up
>>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144):
>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <
>>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are sent,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN
>>>>>>>>>>>> TECH) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Azure SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Fabio Martelli
>>
>> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
>> http://www.tirasa.net/
>>
>> Apache Syncope PMC
>> http://people.apache.org/~fmartelli/
>>
>>
>
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>.
Hi Francesco, Fabilo
@ Francsco It must be <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>. My
bad. What I was typing!
It is mostly complete
https://github.com/hsbhathiya/jclouds-labs/commit/cc24ecc201ff8a6740c232670be57dfc61745643
I'll be able to make the PR with in a day.
@Fabio.
Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment name
is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
directly available or CloudService name instead.
Agree serviceName is an attribute in my VirtualMachine. However I have made
the same (wrong) assumption when transforming
DeploymentsToVirtualMachines in my solution. I'll look for a solution.
May be we can get the cloud service from the Url of deployment
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460804.aspx
Url
Specifies the URL that is used to access the cloud service.For example, if
the service name is *MyService* you could access the access the service by
calling: http://*MyService*.cloudapp.net
I have to check it though.
On 24 March 2015 at 16:39, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il 24/03/2015 11:22, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
>
>> Hi Bhathiya,
>> I was finally able to spend some time to dive into this issue
>> (JCLOUDS-853, if I am not wrong).
>>
>> What is quite clear to me is that the current mapping between Deployment
>> (azure domain) and NodeMetadata (jclouds domain) does not reflect the way
>> how things are organized in Azure.
>>
>> In fact, after having created a cloud service (using the test code)
>> 'ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest', the deployment and the virtual
>> machine with same name (using the code from one of live tests), I was also
>> able to add a second virtual machine to the existing deployment by POSTing
>> this payload [1] to this endpoint [2] (as explained in [3]).
>>
>> I mostly agree with what you propose below, e.g.:
>>
>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces list
>> of virtual machines
>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>> RoleList,OSImage,Location>"
>>
>> I say "mostly" because I don't fully agree with last statement: I would
>> have said instead
>>
>> <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>
>>
>> e.g. keeping RoleSize as class for listing hardware profiles.
>>
>>
>> Have you already started working on this? How long do you think it would
>> take to you to complete?
>> Consider that we already have a pending PR for JCLOUDS-850 and that a new
>> PR for JCLOUDS-849 should be ready by the end of this weel at most.
>> Depending on timings, it might be an idea to rebase our work on yours, as
>> opposite to what Fabio is proposing below.
>>
>
> Hi Bhathiya, as per Francesco, I got your proposal: it sounds reasonable
> with me.
> You can proceed if you want but I have to ask you to take care to make
> Location/CloudService ID available to populate NodeMetadata object.
>
> Currently, the deployment does not include the location among its
> properties: in order to set-up location for a new NodeMetadata object I had
> to retrieve this info asking for CloudService properties before.
>
> Into the DeploymentToNodeMetadata, my temporary solution for the location
> is the following
>
> // TODO: CloudService name is required (see JCLOUDS-849): waiting for
> JCLOUDS-853.
> builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
> LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.name
> ()).location())).orNull());
>
> Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
> name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
> directly available or CloudService name instead.
>
> Please, let me have a feedback.
>
> Regards,
>
> F.
>
>
>> WDYT?
>> Regards.
>>
>> [1] https://paste.apache.org/gQoV
>> [2] https://management.core.windows.net/d6769fbe-4649-
>> 453f-8435-c07f0cc0709d/services/hostedservices/ilgrosso548-
>> virtualmachineapilivetest/deployments/ilgrosso548-
>> virtualmachineapilivetest/roles
>> [3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>
>> On 20/03/2015 17:35, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Fabio,
>>>
>>> I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it. I just need
>>> to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
>>> mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better. It'll be great
>>> if
>>> someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
>>>
>>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
>>>>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure API.
>>>>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as Azure
>>>>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>>>>
>>>>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node is the
>>>>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a roleinststace.
>>>>>
>>>>> My suggestion is to
>>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
>>>>> list
>>>>> of virtual machines
>>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>>> RoleList,OSImage,
>>>>> Location> "
>>>>>
>>>>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this. However
>>>>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the
>>>>> change.Any
>>>>> thoughts on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>> discussion_r25013853
>>>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact of the
>>>> suggested changes.
>>>> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask you to
>>>> wait
>>>> for [1]:
>>>>
>>>> * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
>>>> * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every future
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit the new
>>>> PR
>>>> at the beginning of the next week.
>>>> WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> F.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to make PR)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>>>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to capture all
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> data returned by the operation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation [3]
>>>>>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>>>>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and created
>>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>> #147
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API Reference
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said
>>>>>>> below) in
>>>>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in
>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>> Api
>>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <
>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get all
>>>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development. Thanks
>>>>>>>>> guys!
>>>>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities
>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end up
>>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144): any
>>>>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <
>>>>>>>>> ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track some
>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are sent, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live tests,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are currently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent "Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should coordinate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>
> --
> Fabio Martelli
>
> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
> http://www.tirasa.net/
>
> Apache Syncope PMC
> http://people.apache.org/~fmartelli/
>
>
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>.
Il 24/03/2015 11:22, Francesco Chicchiriccò ha scritto:
> Hi Bhathiya,
> I was finally able to spend some time to dive into this issue
> (JCLOUDS-853, if I am not wrong).
>
> What is quite clear to me is that the current mapping between
> Deployment (azure domain) and NodeMetadata (jclouds domain) does not
> reflect the way how things are organized in Azure.
>
> In fact, after having created a cloud service (using the test code)
> 'ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest', the deployment and the
> virtual machine with same name (using the code from one of live
> tests), I was also able to add a second virtual machine to the
> existing deployment by POSTing this payload [1] to this endpoint [2]
> (as explained in [3]).
>
> I mostly agree with what you propose below, e.g.:
>
> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
> list of virtual machines
> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
> RoleList,OSImage,Location>"
>
> I say "mostly" because I don't fully agree with last statement: I
> would have said instead
>
> <VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>
>
> e.g. keeping RoleSize as class for listing hardware profiles.
>
>
> Have you already started working on this? How long do you think it
> would take to you to complete?
> Consider that we already have a pending PR for JCLOUDS-850 and that a
> new PR for JCLOUDS-849 should be ready by the end of this weel at most.
> Depending on timings, it might be an idea to rebase our work on yours,
> as opposite to what Fabio is proposing below.
Hi Bhathiya, as per Francesco, I got your proposal: it sounds reasonable
with me.
You can proceed if you want but I have to ask you to take care to make
Location/CloudService ID available to populate NodeMetadata object.
Currently, the deployment does not include the location among its
properties: in order to set-up location for a new NodeMetadata object I
had to retrieve this info asking for CloudService properties before.
Into the DeploymentToNodeMetadata, my temporary solution for the
location is the following
// TODO: CloudService name is required (see JCLOUDS-849): waiting for
JCLOUDS-853.
builder.location(FluentIterable.from(locations.get()).firstMatch(
LocationPredicates.idEquals(api.getCloudServiceApi().get(from.name()).location())).orNull());
Please, consider that we have to remove the assumption that deployment
name is equal to CloudService's. This is the reason why we need location
directly available or CloudService name instead.
Please, let me have a feedback.
Regards,
F.
>
> WDYT?
> Regards.
>
> [1] https://paste.apache.org/gQoV
> [2]
> https://management.core.windows.net/d6769fbe-4649-453f-8435-c07f0cc0709d/services/hostedservices/ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest/deployments/ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest/roles
> [3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>
> On 20/03/2015 17:35, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>> Hi Fabio,
>>
>> I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it. I just
>> need
>> to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
>> mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better. It'll be
>> great if
>> someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
>>
>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>
>>>> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
>>>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>>>
>>>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure API.
>>>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as Azure
>>>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>>>
>>>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node is the
>>>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a roleinststace.
>>>>
>>>> My suggestion is to
>>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment
>>>> produces list
>>>> of virtual machines
>>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
>>>> RoleList,OSImage,
>>>> Location> "
>>>>
>>>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this.
>>>> However
>>>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the
>>>> change.Any
>>>> thoughts on this?
>>>>
>>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>> discussion_r25013853
>>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>
>>> Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact of the
>>> suggested changes.
>>> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask you
>>> to wait
>>> for [1]:
>>>
>>> * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
>>> * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every future
>>> change.
>>>
>>> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit the
>>> new PR
>>> at the beginning of the next week.
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> F.
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to make PR)
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to capture
>>>>> all the
>>>>> data returned by the operation
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation [3]
>>>>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>>>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and
>>>>>> created PR
>>>>>> #147
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API
>>>>>> Reference at
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said
>>>>>> below) in
>>>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in
>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>> Api
>>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development.
>>>>>>>> Thanks guys!
>>>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities
>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end
>>>>>>>> up soon
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144):
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò"
>>>>>>>> <ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track some
>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are
>>>>>>>>>>> sent, at
>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN
>>>>>>>>>> TECH) <
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the
>>>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live
>>>>>>>>>>>> tests,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at
>>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts
>>>>>>>>>>>> (you
>>>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>> below?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if
>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> succeeding with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Azure SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>
--
Fabio Martelli
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Apache Syncope PMC
http://people.apache.org/~fmartelli/
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
Hi Bhathiya,
I was finally able to spend some time to dive into this issue
(JCLOUDS-853, if I am not wrong).
What is quite clear to me is that the current mapping between Deployment
(azure domain) and NodeMetadata (jclouds domain) does not reflect the
way how things are organized in Azure.
In fact, after having created a cloud service (using the test code)
'ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest', the deployment and the virtual
machine with same name (using the code from one of live tests), I was
also able to add a second virtual machine to the existing deployment by
POSTing this payload [1] to this endpoint [2] (as explained in [3]).
I mostly agree with what you propose below, e.g.:
1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces
list of virtual machines
3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine,
RoleList,OSImage,Location>"
I say "mostly" because I don't fully agree with last statement: I would
have said instead
<VirtualMachine, RoleSize, OSImage, Location>
e.g. keeping RoleSize as class for listing hardware profiles.
Have you already started working on this? How long do you think it would
take to you to complete?
Consider that we already have a pending PR for JCLOUDS-850 and that a
new PR for JCLOUDS-849 should be ready by the end of this weel at most.
Depending on timings, it might be an idea to rebase our work on yours,
as opposite to what Fabio is proposing below.
WDYT?
Regards.
[1] https://paste.apache.org/gQoV
[2]
https://management.core.windows.net/d6769fbe-4649-453f-8435-c07f0cc0709d/services/hostedservices/ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest/deployments/ilgrosso548-virtualmachineapilivetest/roles
[3] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
On 20/03/2015 17:35, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
> Hi Fabio,
>
> I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it. I just need
> to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
> mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better. It'll be great if
> someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
>
> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>
> Thanks
>
> On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>>
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
>>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>>
>>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure API.
>>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as Azure
>>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>>
>>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node is the
>>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a roleinststace.
>>>
>>> My suggestion is to
>>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces list
>>> of virtual machines
>>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine, RoleList,OSImage,
>>> Location> "
>>>
>>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this. However
>>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the change.Any
>>> thoughts on this?
>>>
>>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>> discussion_r25013853
>>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>
>> Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact of the
>> suggested changes.
>> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask you to wait
>> for [1]:
>>
>> * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
>> * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every future change.
>>
>> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit the new PR
>> at the beginning of the next week.
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> F.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>>
>>
>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>>
>>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to make PR)
>>>>
>>>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>>
>>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to capture all the
>>>> data returned by the operation
>>>>
>>>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation [3]
>>>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>>>
>>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>>
>>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and created PR
>>>>> #147
>>>>>
>>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API Reference at
>>>>>
>>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said below) in
>>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in feature
>>>>>> Api
>>>>>> [1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get all
>>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development. Thanks guys!
>>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities (e.g.
>>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end up soon
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144): any
>>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track some
>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are sent, at
>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the
>>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live tests,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at
>>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts (you
>>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing below?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if
>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent "Azure SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>.
Hi Fabio,
I can wait till the PR of issue [1] and rebase my work on it. I just need
to make sure we get compute abstraction to azure compute
mapping right.I think sooner we make the decision better. It'll be great if
someone from MS Open Tech can look into this issue?
[1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
Thanks
On 20 March 2015 at 19:53, Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
>
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
>> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>>
>> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure API.
>> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as Azure
>> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>>
>> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node is the
>> assumption that deployment always consist of single a roleinststace.
>>
>> My suggestion is to
>> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
>> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces list
>> of virtual machines
>> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
>> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine, RoleList,OSImage,
>> Location> "
>>
>> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this. However
>> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the change.Any
>> thoughts on this?
>>
>> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>> discussion_r25013853
>> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>
>
> Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact of the
> suggested changes.
> Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask you to wait
> for [1]:
>
> * I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
> * the work on this issue will be a strong check for every future change.
>
> We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit the new PR
> at the beginning of the next week.
> WDYT?
>
> Kind regards,
> F.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>
>
>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>>
>>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>>
>>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to make PR)
>>>
>>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>>
>>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to capture all the
>>> data returned by the operation
>>>
>>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation [3]
>>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>>
>>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>>
>>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and created PR
>>>> #147
>>>>
>>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API Reference at
>>>>
>>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>>
>>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said below) in
>>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>>
>>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>
>>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in feature
>>>>> Api
>>>>> [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get all
>>>>>> emails
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development. Thanks guys!
>>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities (e.g.
>>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end up soon
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144): any
>>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <ilgrosso@apache.org
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track some
>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are sent, at
>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the
>>>>>>>>> project?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs
>>>>>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live tests,
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at
>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts (you
>>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing below?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if
>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure
>>>>>>>>>>>> compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on expected
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these days
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent "Azure SDK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST option
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>
>>>> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
>>>> http://www.tirasa.net/
>>>>
>>>> Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
>>>> member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
> --
> Fabio Martelli
>
> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
> http://www.tirasa.net/
>
> Apache Syncope PMC
> http://people.apache.org/~fmartelli/
>
>
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Fabio Martelli <fa...@gmail.com>.
Il 19/03/2015 18:32, Bhathiya Supun ha scritto:
> Hi devs,
>
> I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
> AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
>
> "As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure API.
> However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as Azure
> RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
>
> Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node is the
> assumption that deployment always consist of single a roleinststace.
>
> My suggestion is to
> 1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
> 2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces list
> of virtual machines
> 3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
> 4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine, RoleList,OSImage,
> Location> "
>
> I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this. However
> these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the change.Any
> thoughts on this?
>
> [1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion_r25013853
> [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
Hi Bhathiya, personally I cannot evaluate the overall impact of the
suggested changes.
Even though I have no particular issue with them I have to ask you to
wait for [1]:
* I see a lot of conflicts between our work and yours;
* the work on this issue will be a strong check for every future change.
We are currently working on [1] and we should be able to submit the new
PR at the beginning of the next week.
WDYT?
Kind regards,
F.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-849
>
> On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>>
>> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to make PR)
>>
>> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>>
>> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
>> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to capture all the
>> data returned by the operation
>>
>> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation [3]
>> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>>
>> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
>> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
>> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>>
>> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and created PR
>>> #147
>>>
>>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API Reference at
>>>
>>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>>
>>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said below) in
>>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>>
>>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>>> Thanks for your support.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>
>>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in feature Api
>>>> [1].
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get all emails
>>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development. Thanks guys!
>>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities (e.g.
>>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end up soon
>>>>> with
>>>>> a pull request.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144): any
>>>>> background on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track some
>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are sent, at least
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the project?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs master
>>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live tests, but
>>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at least
>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts (you
>>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing below?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if
>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are
>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion mentioned
>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in multiple
>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on expected
>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our
>>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these days and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent "Azure SDK Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST option was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait for #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid latency
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes some
>>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>
>>> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
>>> http://www.tirasa.net/
>>>
>>> Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
>>> member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
>>> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>>>
>>>
--
Fabio Martelli
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Apache Syncope PMC
http://people.apache.org/~fmartelli/
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>.
Hi devs,
I like to bring back this[1] discussion related to
AzureComputeServcieAdapter implementation.
"As far as I understand RoleInstance represents a node in azure API.
However RoleInstance to NodeMetadata would be bit problematic as Azure
RoleInstance represenation not consist of some important data
Main issue I see in the current mapping of Deployment to Node is the
assumption that deployment always consist of single a roleinststace.
My suggestion is to
1 - Introduce VirtualMachine in domain
2 - Map DeploymentToVirtualMachines where single deployment produces list
of virtual machines
3 - Map VirtualMachineToNodeMetadata
4 - Change AzureComputeServiceAdapter<VirtualMachine, RoleList,OSImage,
Location> "
I can make a PR with suggested changes if we can agree on this. However
these substasks 9,10 in jira would directly conflict with the change.Any
thoughts on this?
[1] - https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion_r25013853
[2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
On 4 March 2015 at 19:36, Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It is great to see this moving forwad.
>
> I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to make PR)
>
> 1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
>
> 2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
> This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to capture all the
> data returned by the operation
>
> 3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation [3]
> allowing different combinations of DeploymentParams
>
> [1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
> [2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
> [3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
>
> On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and created PR
>> #147
>>
>> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API Reference at
>>
>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>>
>> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said below) in
>> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>>
>> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
>> Thanks for your support.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>
>>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in feature Api
>>> [1].
>>>
>>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get all emails
>>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>>
>>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development. Thanks guys!
>>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities (e.g.
>>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end up soon
>>>> with
>>>> a pull request.
>>>>
>>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144): any
>>>> background on this?
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <il...@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track some
>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are sent, at least
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the project?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs master
>>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live tests, but
>>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at least
>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts (you
>>>>>>>> know,
>>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing below?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if
>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are
>>>>>>>>>>> waiting to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion-
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion mentioned
>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in multiple
>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole set of
>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on expected
>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding with
>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our
>>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying some
>>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these days and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent "Azure SDK Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST option was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait for #135
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should coordinate our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid latency
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in [2] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes some
>>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> --
>> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>
>> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
>> http://www.tirasa.net/
>>
>> Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
>> member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
>> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>>
>>
>
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
It is great to see this moving forwad.
I would note down tasks I have finished upto now (but yet to make PR)
1 - Add Role Operation Support [1]
2 - Get Cloud Service Properties Support [2]
This is already supported in feature Api.But improved to capture all the
data returned by the operation
3 - Fix issues in Create Virtual Machine Deployment Operation [3] allowing
different combinations of DeploymentParams
[1] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157186.aspx
[2] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/ee460806.aspx
[3] - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj157194.aspx
On 4 March 2015 at 19:02, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
> FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and created PR
> #147
>
> Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API Reference at
>
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
>
> to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said below) in
> order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
>
> Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
> Thanks for your support.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
>
>> Hi Francesco,
>>
>> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in feature Api
>> [1].
>>
>> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>>
>>
>> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>
>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get all emails
>>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>>
>>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development. Thanks guys!
>>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities (e.g.
>>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end up soon
>>> with
>>> a pull request.
>>>
>>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144): any
>>> background on this?
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>>
>>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <il...@apache.org>
>>>
>>>> escribió:
>>>>
>>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track some
>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>>>
>>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are sent, at least
>>>>> when
>>>>> issues get created?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
>>>>>
>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the project?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#
>>>>>>> issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs master
>>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live tests, but
>>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at least
>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts (you know,
>>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing below?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if everything
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are waiting
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion mentioned
>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in multiple
>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure compute
>>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather than
>>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole set of
>>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on expected
>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding with an
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our
>>>>>>>>> contribution,
>>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying some
>>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these days and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are currently a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent "Azure SDK Vs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST option was
>>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait for #135
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should coordinate our work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid latency
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next steps!
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in [2] and to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing something?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes some
>>>>>>>>> troubles
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure subscription)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
> http://www.tirasa.net/
>
> Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
> member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>
>
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>.
Hi,
FYI we were finally able to fix the live test execution, and created PR #147
Now we are examining the Azure Service Management REST API Reference at
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee460799.aspx
to identify anything missing (also considering PR #144 as said below) in
order to create subtasks of JCLOUDS-664 as agreed.
Any idea about timings for merging #144 and #147?
Thanks for your support.
Regards.
On 02/03/2015 12:58, Bhathiya Supun wrote:
> Hi Francesco,
>
> I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in feature Api
> [1].
>
> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
>
>
> On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>
>>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get all emails
>>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>>
>> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>>
>> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development. Thanks guys!
>> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities (e.g.
>> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end up soon with
>> a pull request.
>>
>> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144): any
>> background on this?
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <il...@apache.org>
>>> escribió:
>>>
>>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>> Francesco,
>>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track some
>>>>> subtasks
>>>>> identified in #135
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are sent, at least when
>>>> issues get created?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> Regards.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
>>>>
>>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the project?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs master
>>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live tests, but
>>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at least
>>>>>> ask
>>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts (you know,
>>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing below?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if everything
>>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are waiting to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion-
>>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion mentioned
>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in multiple subtasks
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure compute
>>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current activities.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather than
>>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole set of
>>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on expected actual
>>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite soon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding with an
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our contribution,
>>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN subscriptions
>>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying some
>>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these days and we
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are currently a couple
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial implementation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent "Azure SDK Vs
>>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST option was
>>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait for #135 and
>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should coordinate our work
>>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid latency and
>>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next steps!
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in [2] and to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing something?
>>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes some troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure subscription) test
>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/config/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
http://www.tirasa.net/
Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
Re: Working on Azure compute provider
Posted by Bhathiya Supun <hs...@gmail.com>.
Hi Francesco,
I added PR 144 supporting virtual machine image operations in feature Api
[1].
[1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/dn499771.aspx
On 2 March 2015 at 16:42, Francesco Chicchiriccò <il...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On 28/02/2015 08:12, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>
>> You can subscribe to the jclouds "notifications" list to get all emails
>> from jira and github comments. Everyting ends up in a ML.
>>
>
> Thanks Ignasi, just subscribed.
>
> Let's use the subtasks to coordinate the development. Thanks guys!
>>
>
> Fine: we'll keep you updated here about our current activities (e.g.
> making the live test suite succeeding) - which I hope will end up soon with
> a pull request.
>
> I have also seen another pull request on Azure provider (#144): any
> background on this?
>
> Regards.
>
>
> El 27/02/2015 17:16, "Francesco Chicchiriccò" <il...@apache.org>
>> escribió:
>>
>> On 27/02/2015 17:09, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>
>>> Francesco,
>>>>
>>>> thanks again for you interest!
>>>>
>>>> Yes, #135 has been merged few hours ago. I've also update
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664 to track some
>>>> subtasks
>>>> identified in #135
>>>>
>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>> that's cool: do you know where JIRA notifications are sent, at least when
>>> issues get created?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Regards.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <
>>>
>>>> Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Set up a GitHub user for this kid and subscribe ot to the project?
>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my Windows Phone
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Francesco Chicchiriccò<ma...@apache.org>
>>>>> Sent: 2/27/2015 7:54 AM
>>>>> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<ma...@jclouds.apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Working on Azure compute provider
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi there!
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like PR 135 was merged today:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#issuecomment-76381931
>>>>>
>>>>> That's good: we will re-base our work on updated jclouds-labs master
>>>>> branch and move forward (still having troubles with live tests, but
>>>>> making some progresses).
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we move here at dev@ discussions like the one above or at least
>>>>> ask
>>>>> infra to setup some sort of github PR mirroring?
>>>>> It would help keeping track of ongoing development efforts (you know,
>>>>> "If it didn't happen on a mailing list, it didn't happen"...).
>>>>> What about opening residual issues as we've been discussing below?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:45, Ignasi Barrera wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. I'll have a look at it later today and merge it if everything
>>>>>> looks good. Let's move forward!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24 February 2015 at 15:40, Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24/02/2015 15:25, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Francesco,
>>>>>>>> thanks for your update and for your effort!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think #135 is almost ready to be merged, I think we are waiting to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> close
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> the main pending discussion on
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135#discussion-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff-24976668
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about merging #135 as is and moving the discussion mentioned
>>>>>> above
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> a new JIRA issue (linked to or as subtask of) JCLOUDS-664?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like both the idea of splitting JCLOUDS-164 in multiple subtasks
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> simply create a new set of JIRA ISSUES to improve Azure compute
>>>>>>>> implmentation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anything goes to me, good!
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue Feb 24 2015 at 2:16:54 PM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a quick update on ours (Fabio's and mine) current activities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are basing our work on PR #135 rather than
>>>>>>>>> jclouds-labs' master, since the former contains a whole set of
>>>>>>>>> fixes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> new features, and is in turn based on the latter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> About this, is anyone able to provide a sneak peek on expected actual
>>>>>>>>> merge timeframe? From the e-mail below it seems quite soon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are currently trying to make all live tests succeeding with an
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Azure instance: this is the initial main purpose of our contribution,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and will constitute the ground of our first pull request.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Incidentally, I remember that there are free MSDN subscriptions
>>>>>>>>> available - including Azure - for ASF committers; see
>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/committers/donated-
>>>>>>>>> licenses/msdn-license-grants.txt
>>>>>>>>> for details)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The intention is then to move from there by identifying some
>>>>>>>>> subtasks
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JCLOUDS-664 for each specific item.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 20/02/2015 10:13, Andrea Turli wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Francesco,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> thanks for your interest in jclouds!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Azure Compute implementation is under the spot these days and we
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to improve it.
>>>>>>>>>>> You may be aware of [1] and moreover there are currently a couple
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> pending PRs which are providing an initial implementation of the
>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrea, I am aware of course of the recent "Azure SDK Vs
>>>>>>>>>> REST"
>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and I also know that at the end the REST option was
>>>>>>>>>> preferred.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As [2] will be soon merged, I think we could wait for #135 and
>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> rebase
>>>>>>>>>>> your #137 on it, if it is still needed.
>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This sounds reasonable: I think we should coordinate our work
>>>>>>>>>> (even
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> opening some subtasks of JCLOUDS-664) in order to avoid latency and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> being as much effective as possible.
>>>>>>>>>> How would do you see this?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to join IRC #jclouds to discuss better next steps!
>>>>>>>>>> I'm already there :-)
>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1]: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@jclouds.apache.org/
>>>>>>>>>> msg05877.
>>>>>>>>>> html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/135
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 10:03:45 AM Francesco Chicchiriccò
>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi JClouds community,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am interested in contributing to the Azure compute provider
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> target of completing its implementation, as part of Eduard's
>>>>>>>>>>>> team
>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>> focus on Azure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anyone actively working on this [1]?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see as initial directions to implement methods in [2] and to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the deprecated implementations in [3]: am I missing something?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have prepared a first pull request [4] which fixes some troubles
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>>> found with live (e.g. against an actual Azure subscription) test
>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-664
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/compute/
>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeServiceAdapter.java
>>>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/blob/master/
>>>>>>>>>>>> azurecompute/src/main/java/org/jclouds/azurecompute/config/
>>>>>>>>>>>> AzureComputeHttpApiModule.java
>>>>>>>>>>>> [4] https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/137
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
> --
> Francesco Chicchiriccò
>
> Tirasa - Open Source Excellence
> http://www.tirasa.net/
>
> Involved at The Apache Software Foundation:
> member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PMC
> http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
>
>
>