uds.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Contributing Azure support
Thanks Eduard!
I will have a look at the PR later today/tomorrow. It is quite big, so
it may take some time to review and I want to make sure I have time to
review it properly.
Regarding the issue, there was already JCLOUDS-664 [1] to track t
day, February 6, 2015 8:55 AM
> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Contributing Azure support
>
> At this time we have no intention of migrating to REST, that may change, but
> I'm not able to guarantee it at this time. If the community want to do the
> REST work t
...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 8:55 AM
To: dev@jclouds.apache.org
Subject: RE: Contributing Azure support
At this time we have no intention of migrating to REST, that may change, but
I'm not able to guarantee it at this time. If the community want to do the REST
work then
_
From: Ignasi Barrera<mailto:n...@apache.org>
Sent: 2/6/2015 1:24 AM
To: dev@jclouds.apache.org<mailto:dev@jclouds.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Contributing Azure support
The only thing that worries me about the SDK vs REST api is the
uncertainity of "when" that change (re
The only thing that worries me about the SDK vs REST api is the
uncertainity of "when" that change (required for promotion) will be
made.
We have always stated and made efforts to make it clear that providers
in labs are not production ready. We can make non-backwards compatible
changes there, com
Eduard (who has also joined this list) will work on the initial
contribution in the coming days and we can start doing concrete stuff.
Great! Looking forward to seeing the code doing the talking ;-)
Regards
ap
, February 5, 2015 2:02 AM
To: dev@jclouds.apache.org
Subject: Re: Contributing Azure support
Hi!
Many thanks for reaching us and for willing to help with Azure. We really look
forward to having good support for it, so all contributions are very welcome.
As you already summarized, the right plac
Hi!
+1; will be great to have fully functioning azure support!
With great coincidence of timing, I submitted a PR yesterday [1] to the
jclouds-labs for azurecompute. We need Azure support for the downstream
Apache Brooklyn [2] and Clocker [3] projects. Microsoft have kindly
provided us a sponsore
I'll be more than happy to help with the development of the provider,
provide guidance, and to align the code with what jclouds needs.
Thanks for putting together this comprehensive answer, Ignasi! For
future reference, I've tried to formulate it more generally here:
https://cwiki.apache.org
ure support as a use case for
> defining that minimum bar if it is appropriate.
>
> Ross
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Phillips [mailto:aphill...@qrmedia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 4:31 PM
> To: dev@jclouds.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Contributing Azure
um bar if it is appropriate.
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Phillips [mailto:aphill...@qrmedia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2015 4:31 PM
To: dev@jclouds.apache.org
Subject: RE: Contributing Azure support
Hi Ross
> Thanks for the pointer John. Why is Blob in core and Compute in
&
Hi Ross
Thanks for the pointer John. Why is Blob in core and Compute in
Labs? What is the criteria for leaving labs?
See http://markmail.org/thread/zvsytdvzfeg4w2zi. In short, it's still
an ongoing discussion, but support for one of the abstraction layers
(which is true for both Azure Bl
:47 PM
To: dev@jclouds.apache.org
Subject: Re: Contributing Azure support
There is also an existing azureblob implementation which we currently use in
production:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/tree/master/providers/azureblob
I took Adrian's original implementation and extended i
There is also an existing azureblob implementation which we currently use
in production:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/tree/master/providers/azureblob
I took Adrian's original implementation and extended it for larger blob
types. I don't particularly care about the implementation, and the
14 matches
Mail list logo
