Robert Pack

I am considering looking into this once (if :)) #486 gets merged. MY assumption would be that `delete_obj` and `put_obj` could be implemented without the need for hierarchical namespaces enabled....

@thovoll, thanks for the pointers, and excited to see that the azure-sdk-for-rust repo seems to see some increased activity recently - I'm guessing pushing for a release of the crates......

I think these crates are actually the foundation for the development going on under the Azure github org right now. If you go to the repo, you'll see a notice...

The DefaultCredential we use is an credential chain. Only authorization via KEY or or SAS is not part of this chain. I am not sure about priorities in the chained...

The way we implemented for the Azure credentials is actually heavily inspired by the internals of the rusto s3 crate 🙂.

@thovoll - this is done by now, right?

I had a deeper look into the `mock_transport_framework` for the azure crates and have to say I am quite the fan :). Seeing how the azure crates are migrating to...

@thovoll, Happy to support where I can! Very much looking forward to having this integration :). For some personal experiments I needed a Kusto client and recently refactored this to...

I just merged a PR to allow passing in the "raw" SAS key and forwarding it to `object_store`. This will be available in the next python release.

Yes, the plan is to support this. I want to get to implement some more higher level write APIs soon-ish, but there are some priorities that need to get done...