New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Two fixes for compatibility with EMC ViPR #46

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Sep 22, 2013

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@jasoncwik
Contributor

jasoncwik commented Sep 20, 2013

Attached are two fixes for compatibility with EMC ViPR:

  1. In the first step of keystone authentication, null values were sent for tenantId and tenantName. Fixed to omit the null fields.

  2. Added an "Accept" header to explicitly request application/json responses during authentication.

@buildhive

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@buildhive

buildhive Sep 20, 2013

Java Swift » joss #26 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good
(what's this?)

buildhive commented Sep 20, 2013

Java Swift » joss #26 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good
(what's this?)

@buildhive

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@buildhive

buildhive Sep 20, 2013

Java Swift » joss #27 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good
(what's this?)

buildhive commented Sep 20, 2013

Java Swift » joss #27 SUCCESS
This pull request looks good
(what's this?)

robert-bor added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 22, 2013

Merge pull request #46 from jasoncwik/master
Two fixes for compatibility with EMC ViPR

@robert-bor robert-bor merged commit df84a96 into javaswift:master Sep 22, 2013

@robert-bor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@robert-bor

robert-bor Sep 22, 2013

Hi Jason, thanks for your pull requests! I have adopted it and will refactor a bit and bring unit test coverage back up to 100%.

robert-bor commented on 09dbc70 Sep 22, 2013

Hi Jason, thanks for your pull requests! I have adopted it and will refactor a bit and bring unit test coverage back up to 100%.

@robert-bor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@robert-bor

robert-bor Sep 22, 2013

Member

Jason, I've made some changes, including the removal of gullibleVerifier (unused). If you give the go, I'll release a 0.9.2 to Maven Central.

Member

robert-bor commented Sep 22, 2013

Jason, I've made some changes, including the removal of gullibleVerifier (unused). If you give the go, I'll release a 0.9.2 to Maven Central.

@jasoncwik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasoncwik

jasoncwik Sep 23, 2013

Contributor

Looks good!

Contributor

jasoncwik commented Sep 23, 2013

Looks good!

@robert-bor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@robert-bor

robert-bor Sep 23, 2013

Member

v0.9.2 has been pushed to Maven Central. Can you tell me a bit more about EMC ViPR?

Member

robert-bor commented Sep 23, 2013

v0.9.2 has been pushed to Maven Central. Can you tell me a bit more about EMC ViPR?

@jasoncwik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasoncwik

jasoncwik Sep 23, 2013

Contributor

EMC ViPR is a software-defined storage platform. It can be used to manage heterogeneous storage and also provide object storage services (S3, Swift, Atmos) on top of that storage.

http://www.emc.com/data-center-management/vipr/index.htm

I would also like to add support for X-Container-Read and X-Container-Write. How would that impact your mock service? (jasoncwik@223ae0a)

Finally, there are two optional container create headers (X-Emc-ProjectId and X-Emc-Vpool) that are specific to ViPR. Is there a good way to implement support for that?

Contributor

jasoncwik commented Sep 23, 2013

EMC ViPR is a software-defined storage platform. It can be used to manage heterogeneous storage and also provide object storage services (S3, Swift, Atmos) on top of that storage.

http://www.emc.com/data-center-management/vipr/index.htm

I would also like to add support for X-Container-Read and X-Container-Write. How would that impact your mock service? (jasoncwik@223ae0a)

Finally, there are two optional container create headers (X-Emc-ProjectId and X-Emc-Vpool) that are specific to ViPR. Is there a good way to implement support for that?

@robert-bor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@robert-bor

robert-bor Sep 24, 2013

Member

If you are willing to make a pull request for the X-Container-Read|Write, I will adopt them into the main branch and figure out the impact to the mocking framework.

About the separate X-Emc headers, the convention for Swift is to work with the "X-Container-Meta-". Is there a way to use this convention for your custom metadata headers?

Member

robert-bor commented Sep 24, 2013

If you are willing to make a pull request for the X-Container-Read|Write, I will adopt them into the main branch and figure out the impact to the mocking framework.

About the separate X-Emc headers, the convention for Swift is to work with the "X-Container-Meta-". Is there a way to use this convention for your custom metadata headers?

@jasoncwik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jasoncwik

jasoncwik Oct 1, 2013

Contributor

Unfortunately, using X-Container-Meta is not an option. ViPR engineering opted to keep the headers the same across protocols (S3, Swift, Atmos), so we must use X-Emc-*. I created a commit that allows you to supply a collection of "Custom Headers" during container create. What do you think? jasoncwik@fd31f6f

Contributor

jasoncwik commented Oct 1, 2013

Unfortunately, using X-Container-Meta is not an option. ViPR engineering opted to keep the headers the same across protocols (S3, Swift, Atmos), so we must use X-Emc-*. I created a commit that allows you to supply a collection of "Custom Headers" during container create. What do you think? jasoncwik@fd31f6f

katta pushed a commit to twxkit/joss that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2014

Merge pull request #46 from jasoncwik/master
Two fixes for compatibility with EMC ViPR

katta pushed a commit to twxkit/joss that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2014

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment