Thank you very much for the detailed answee. It makes a lot of sense and I
really appreciate you took your time to elaborate it.
Mind putting a summary of these design decisions and their reasoning in the
README? Then we could copy it to the website on a vagrant user guide. I think
this is very
TL;DR - We should keep the registry and expire the status only. Could save some
of it in the machine description yaml.
---
That's correct @nacx. We see only machines we've created (with the exception of
the initial load).
The provider serves the following purposes:
1. holds information that'
Pushed to
[master](http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/jclouds-labs/commit/75558ef9)
and
[2.0.x](http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/jclouds-labs/commit/66bed4b3).
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
http
Closed #357.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/357#event-946465183
Not that we don't have the terminated node cache, I'm wondering if we need the
node registry at all. If I get it, we have a cache of nodes that is built from
a *memoized* supplier, so we only get a fresh list of existing nodes when we
create the context. For example, if we call `listNodes`, manu
nacx approved this pull request.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/357#pullrequestreview-19787393
Used to keep terminated nodes meta for a short while, but not needed.
Also adds missing state transitions on halt, reboot.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds-labs/pull/357
-- Commit Summary --
* Remove terminated nodes cache
--
