Hi, I've issued a PR to fix that issue: https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs-google/pull/24
Please review it and merge, if ok. Thanks, Andrea On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Andrea Turli <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mikolaj, > > thanks for reporting that. I think the best approach would be to make > jclouds aware of the obsolete machineTypes by considering the > deprecated field in the MachineType domain object, so (b) if I get you > right. > > I've already a patch that deals with it that I can submit asap. > > Best, > Andrea > > > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Mikołaj Zalewski <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> When working with jclouds I've stumbled on a problem during GCE VM >> creation. If I specify machine hardware by constraints, the framework can >> find an obsolete hardware profile and the creation will fail (an obsolete >> hardware profile in GCE means that one can't create new instance of this >> platform, but there may still be instances running). I've opened JIRA >> 550<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-550>for it. What's >> the recommended way to fix this? I can think of three ways: >> (a) don't advertise obsolete (and deleted) machine types in >> computeService.listHardwareProfiles() >> at all. >> (b) add the notion of an obsolete (as well as deleted and deprecated?) >> profile to the base Hardware object and use it in TemplateBuilderImpl to >> filter out these profiles. >> (c) try to use some subclassing/injections for the TemplateBuilder to >> work differently for GCE than for others and to know about the hardware >> states. >> I personally don't like (c) while as for (a) and (b) I don't have the >> experience about possible side-effects to choose one. What's you advise >> which solution is the best? >> >> Mikołaj Zalewski >> >> PS: choosing one of the hardware profiles from >> computeService.listHardwareProfiles() >> and passing it to TemplateBuilder.fromHardware() doesn't necessarily lead >> to this profile being chosen, as only some fields from the parameter are >> used as constraints and the id is not one of them. Is this a bug or a >> feature?
