anyone used vcloud-director against 5.1 yet?

[Shane Witbeck]

Just curious if anyone has used the vcloud-director code against the 5.1 API yet? Any gotchas and/or overrides that need to be present?

Off the bat, it seems that the Accept HTTP header should change from application/*+xml;version=1.5 to application/*+xml;version=5.1

Thanks,

Shane

[Adrian Cole]

Hi, Shane.

Moving to dev as my response is mostly about using the 5.1 API.  vCloud Director likely also supports the existing 1.5 API, so you should check into that.  If you are using the 1.5 API (even against the 5.1 product), then content negotiation should still allow version 1.5 in the Accept header.

Does the version list for vcloud director 5.1 not include 1.5?  Previously, 1.5 included 1.0, for example.

Wrt 5.1 API:

5.1 has a number of incompatible objects and needs another package hierarchy for those.  Since vCloud domain was implemented in jaxb, I'm not sure how easy reusing or extending these conflicting classes to work with both versions with be.

For the accept header hard-coding version, you "might" try replacing with ${jclouds.api-version} in the async class.

-A

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jclouds" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jclouds/-/Z6SSFc7ryhkJ.
To post to this group, send email to jcl...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jclouds+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jclouds?hl=en.

[Shane Witbeck]

Hi Adrian,

I've confirmed that the version list includes both 1.5 and 5.1. 

I tried logging in to the 5.1 product and got a 406. I suspect that 5.1 is doing extra checking for the version in the Accept header. It looks as though jclouds actually sends "*/*" for the Accept value instead of "application/*+xml;version=1.5" or "application/*+xml;version=5.1". I'll try your suggestion of changing ${jclouds.api-version} in the async class.

Regarding incompatible objects, it seems that there has been changes to the objects in jclouds as well. I asked Andrea about the following change a couple days ago:

https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/commit/efbaa257e537d317cc3149fbf806ec90660af618#labs/vcloud-director/src/main/java/org/jclouds/vcloud/director/v1_5/domain/VAppTemplate.java

Bottom line, it sounds like you're suggesting creating a new labs module or package in jclouds specifically for 5.1 to address incompatible objects, etc.?

Thanks,

Shane

[Adrian Cole]

Hi, Shane.

Some objects are just incompatible, but most are probably not.  We will probably need another package hierarchy for the ones that are incompatible.

-A

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jclouds-dev" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jclouds-dev/-/OB6o88fkt4IJ.
To post to this group, send email to jclou...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to jclouds-dev...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jclouds-dev?hl=en.

[Shane Witbeck]

Just to follow up, my suspicions about the Accept header were confirmed. After updating the header in jclouds, the 406 went away. 

We've now forked jclouds and started working on 5.1-specific fixes and hopefully will have something to contribute back in the near future.

Thanks,

Shane

[Adrian Cole]

Awesome. Thanks for the update!

Can you open a jclouds issue in google code site for vCD 5.1 support?

Cheers,
-A

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/jclouds-dev/-/M8GQJiOr-zwJ.