Hi Daniel, Ruben,

I thought it'd be appropriate to add to this thread and revive the
conversation; we've had a couple of bugs filed recently against the ON
driver; I'd be really grateful if you could have a look:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DTACLOUD-257
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DTACLOUD-258

In particular 257 as I couldn't quite get to the bottom of that one -
but also 258 as my solution imo is just a 'band-aid' - I think these
issues are indicative of a gap between the ON OCCI version the driver
was written for (3.2) and the current version running @
http://occi.c12g.com/ (I assume this is 3.6 from you earlier comments?).

As you guys are obviously the OpenNebula experts - I'd appreciate any
thoughts and comments and also I'd ask whether you had the time to take
a look at the current driver. There's no need for duplication of effort;
otherwise I'll be putting it on my to-do list for the near future.

As always thank you very much for your time and consideration,

all the best, marios


On 04/07/12 14:59, David Lutterkort wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 11:56 +0200, Ruben S. Montero wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Do you mean back-porting the verbose option to OpenNebula 3.2? In this
>> line, we plan for our short roadmap to include a version API call so
>> clients can get the version of the server and adapt themselves to it.
>>
>> BTW, in OpenNebula.org  we only support the last stable release, and
>> encourage people to upgrade. The next stable release (3.6) is scheduled for
>> next week. This will make OpenNebula 3.2 two versions behind the last
>> stable. So I think we could just update the driver to use verbose mode, and
>> throw an exception if the call is not supported.
> 
> I meant: what's the patch that should be committed to the Deltacloud
> driver for OpenNebula ?
> 
> I don't think we should just throw an exception, I'd rather the driver
> is smart enough to fall back to the (slow) way of doing things it's
> doing now if the ON instance doesn't support the verbose query param.
> 
> David
> 
> 


Reply via email to