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