You actually do not need to download it. if you just run --

`bosh upload release
https://bosh.io/d/github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release?v=202`

The director will pull in the release directly from bosh.io.

Yes it's stable.

You should try what Eric Poelke suggested, bosh upload release
https://bosh.io/d/github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release?v=202, that way it
won't even try to untar locally.

If you still want to be able to upload a local tarball, can I ask how
exactly did you get or create your tarball for v202?

Best,
Amit

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Parthiban Annadurai <
senjiparthi(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Yaa thanks for your suggestions. But, I already checked about the Storage
and all it not even touches 2 GB (Out of 15 GB). When i manually try to
Untar the file also throws error. I think problem with the CF v202. Could
anyone tell me is this version stable or not?

Regards

Parthiban A

On 18 October 2015 at 21:24, Eric Poelke <epoelke(a)gmail.com> wrote:

You can avoid the local disk issues by using bosh.io like so --

bosh upload release
https://bosh.io/d/github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release?v=202

You can avoid the local disk issues by using bosh.io like so --

bosh upload release
https://bosh.io/d/github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release?v=202

On Oct 18, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Krzysztof Wilk <chris.m.wilk(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

Until today I have been a happy user of CloudFoundry Maven plugin version 1.1.2:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-java-client

It worked for me pretty well.

Unfortunately after having migrated my application from PWS to Diego, this plugin stopped working for me.

cf command line client works well, as expected.

Does the Maven plugin support Diego or should I have to wait until its 2.0 relase?

Thanks for replies,

Yours,
Krzysztof

The application version really represents the versioned metadata for the
application. It changes regularly. [1] The only guarantee for version is
that it will change if the app restarts (could be due to package changes or
explicit operation), the health check changes, or the memory changes.

The droplet hash is not an appropriate representation of "application"
version since it doesn't take enough into account. It is something that
could be added to VCAP_APPLICATION but I think people would want to
understand why it's needed there.

Out of curiosity, are people acting on the application version in a way
that breaks things if it changes when the app bits or droplet did not? If
so, how?

Thanks.

[1]:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cloud_controller_ng/blob/master/app/models/runtime/app.rb#L164-L178

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Gerhard Lazu <gerhard(a)cloudcredo.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gerhard(a)cloudcredo.com');>> wrote:

I was also assuming that app version would not change between app
restarts (when the same droplet is used). I was wrong.

Would it make more sense if the app version was the droplet shasum?

On Thursday, 15 October 2015, CF Runtime <cfruntime(a)gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cfruntime(a)gmail.com');>> wrote:

application_version is mostly an internal cloud foundry concern. The
DEAs broadcast the application version they are running, and the health
manager uses that with what version it expects to be running to converge
the system on the desired state.

Restarting the app is supposed to terminate the old instances and start
the new ones, so they new ones get a new application version so they are
separate from the old.

Joseph
CF Release Integration Team

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Hiroaki Ukaji <dt3snow.w(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi.
I have a question about a json field "application_version" in an
environment
variable "VCAP_APPLICATION".

By intuition, "application_version" should be only changed when there is
some update for an application.
Actually, when an application is terminated for some reasons and
restarted
automatically, "application_version" remain unchanged.

As far as I see it, however, "application_version" is changed when I "cf
restart" my application i.e. CCNG should use the same droplet so there
are
no differences from the one before deployment.

If it is possible, could someone please tell me the intention about this
implementation?


Thanks.

Hiroaki UKAJI



--
View this message in context:
http://cf-dev.70369.x6.nabble.com/cf-dev-application-version-is-changed-although-source-code-is-not-changed-tp2262.html
Sent from the CF Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
Matthew Sykes
matthew.sykes(a)gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','matthew.sykes(a)gmail.com');>

This is awesome! Using reactive-streams is particularly inspired. Congrats
and I'm very much looking forward to this work.

Will v1 receive support for individually addressable IPs, or will that be
unique to v2?


On Thursday, October 15, 2015, Ben Hale <bhale(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

As many of you are aware, the Cloud Foundry Java Client has been a bit
neglected lately. There are various reasons for this, but today I’m
pleased to announce that we’ve begun a V2 effort and that progress is swift.

We on the Cloud Foundry Java Experience team have been aware for some
time that the current implementation of the Java Client is less than
ideal. Among the most common complaints were the lack of separation
between interface and implementation, the subpar network performance, and
the requirement that users understand how to orchestrate common concepts
like `push` on their own. (For a more in-depth treatment of issues we
identified, please see the stellar work done by Scott Fredrick[1].) V2
aims to address all of these issues with a ground-up redesign of the client.

To address the issue of a lack of separation between interface and
implementation, we’ve broken out the API into a project containing no
implementation. This project (`cloudfoundry-client`) consists of a
collection of interfaces and immutable datatypes. There is only a single
dependency, and it isn’t Spring! The intent here was to create an API that
could be implemented with multiple strategies, but requiring the minimal
amount of code for each of those implementations. The API itself is now
reactive (the single dependency is on Reactive Streams, the precursor to
reactive support in Java 9) which we believe will more closely align with
the trends towards non-blocking network communication. We will be
providing a single implementation of this API, based on Spring
(`cloudfoundry-client-spring`) but welcome additional implementations. We
believe we’ve created a good environment for alternatives and would be
happy to hear suggestions on how to improve if that turns out not to be the
case.

In V1, the coverage of the APIs[2] was incomplete (about half, if I had
to guess). Our commitment is to deliver a complete API and implementation
in V2, including all 300+ documented APIs. We’ve observed that this API
might not actually be the right level of abstraction for many users
though. Knowing that you need to create an application, create a package,
stage a droplet, create and start a process, etc. for `push` is quite a
burden on many users of the project. So, we’re also providing a
`cloudfoundry-operations` project that builds on the `cloudfoundry-client`
API but instead of mapping onto the low-level REST API, we’re going to map
roughly onto the `cf` CLI API. We suspect that nearly all users will want
to `cloudFoundryOperations.push()` instead of the low-level alternative, so
both choices are useful. This API and implementation will only depend on
`cloudfoundry-client` allowing any implementation of that API to be used.
Finally, we’ll be bringing the build-system plugins up to date with the
systems that they are built for and ensuring that they cover a breadth of
useful functionality at build time.

This leaves the question about what will happen to V1. We have a
commitment to fixing up the bugs that have been identified in the
code-base, but we’re not going to be doing any work that involves adding
APIs. We feel that users who need those APIs are better served moving to
V2. I’ll be feeding open issues from the backlog into the V2 stream of
work to ensure that we aren’t seeing any resource starvation and you can
expect future releases out of the `1.x` branch.

I hope that this comes as welcome news to the community and look forward
to the feedback. I highly encourage users to keep an eye Pivotal
Tracker[3] to see our progress and submit requests through GitHub[4].


-Ben Hale
Cloud Foundry Java Experience

[1]:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ui-67dBPYoADltErL80xXYEr_INPqdNJG9Va4gPBM-I/edit?usp=sharing
[2]: http://apidocs.cloudfoundry.org/221/
[3]: https://www.pivotaltracker.com/projects/816799
[4]: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-java-client

--
Josh Long
Spring Developer Advocate, Pivotal
joshlong.com | @starbuxman

As many of you are aware, the Cloud Foundry Java Client has been a bit
neglected lately. There are various reasons for this, but today I’m
pleased to announce that we’ve begun a V2 effort and that progress is swift.

We on the Cloud Foundry Java Experience team have been aware for some time
that the current implementation of the Java Client is less than ideal.
Among the most common complaints were the lack of separation between
interface and implementation, the subpar network performance, and the
requirement that users understand how to orchestrate common concepts like
`push` on their own. (For a more in-depth treatment of issues we
identified, please see the stellar work done by Scott Fredrick[1].) V2
aims to address all of these issues with a ground-up redesign of the client.

To address the issue of a lack of separation between interface and
implementation, we’ve broken out the API into a project containing no
implementation. This project (`cloudfoundry-client`) consists of a
collection of interfaces and immutable datatypes. There is only a single
dependency, and it isn’t Spring! The intent here was to create an API that
could be implemented with multiple strategies, but requiring the minimal
amount of code for each of those implementations. The API itself is now
reactive (the single dependency is on Reactive Streams, the precursor to
reactive support in Java 9) which we believe will more closely align with
the trends towards non-blocking network communication. We will be
providing a single implementation of this API, based on Spring
(`cloudfoundry-client-spring`) but welcome additional implementations. We
believe we’ve created a good environment for alternatives and would be
happy to hear suggestions on how to improve if that turns out not to be the
case.

In V1, the coverage of the APIs[2] was incomplete (about half, if I had to
guess). Our commitment is to deliver a complete API and implementation in
V2, including all 300+ documented APIs. We’ve observed that this API might
not actually be the right level of abstraction for many users though.
Knowing that you need to create an application, create a package, stage a
droplet, create and start a process, etc. for `push` is quite a burden on
many users of the project. So, we’re also providing a
`cloudfoundry-operations` project that builds on the `cloudfoundry-client`
API but instead of mapping onto the low-level REST API, we’re going to map
roughly onto the `cf` CLI API. We suspect that nearly all users will want
to `cloudFoundryOperations.push()` instead of the low-level alternative, so
both choices are useful. This API and implementation will only depend on
`cloudfoundry-client` allowing any implementation of that API to be used.
Finally, we’ll be bringing the build-system plugins up to date with the
systems that they are built for and ensuring that they cover a breadth of
useful functionality at build time.

This leaves the question about what will happen to V1. We have a
commitment to fixing up the bugs that have been identified in the
code-base, but we’re not going to be doing any work that involves adding
APIs. We feel that users who need those APIs are better served moving to
V2. I’ll be feeding open issues from the backlog into the V2 stream of
work to ensure that we aren’t seeing any resource starvation and you can
expect future releases out of the `1.x` branch.

I hope that this comes as welcome news to the community and look forward
to the feedback. I highly encourage users to keep an eye Pivotal
Tracker[3] to see our progress and submit requests through GitHub[4].


-Ben Hale
Cloud Foundry Java Experience

[1]:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ui-67dBPYoADltErL80xXYEr_INPqdNJG9Va4gPBM-I/edit?usp=sharing
[2]: http://apidocs.cloudfoundry.org/221/
[3]: https://www.pivotaltracker.com/projects/816799
[4]: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-java-client

Hi,

How can I define a default plan to be used by more than one services
without repeating the same plan definition in settings.yml file?

Appreciate your help.