On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:29 AM, Ryan Brown <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 02/10/2015 08:01 AM, Everett Toews wrote: On Feb 9, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Jay Pipes <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 02/02/2015 02:51 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 23:05 +0000, Everett Toews wrote: To converge the OpenStack APIs to a consistent and pragmatic RESTful design by creating guidelines that the projects should follow. The intent is not to create backwards incompatible changes in existing APIs, but to have new APIs and future versions of existing APIs converge. It's looking good already. I think it would be good also to mention the end-recipients of the consistent and pragmatic RESTful design so that whoever reads the mission is reminded why that's important. Something like: To improve developer experience converging the OpenStack API to a consistent and pragmatic RESTful design. The working group creates guidelines that all OpenStack projects should follow, avoids introducing backwards incompatible changes in existing APIs and promotes convergence of new APIs and future versions of existing APIs. After reading all the mails in this thread, I've decided that Stef's suggested mission statement above is the one I think best represents what we're trying to do. That said, I think it should begin "To improve developer experience *by* converging" ... :) +1 I think we could be even more explicit about the audience. To improve developer experience *of API consumers by* converging the OpenStack API to a consistent and pragmatic RESTful design. The working group creates guidelines that all OpenStack projects should follow, avoids introducing backwards incompatible changes in existing APIs, and promotes convergence of new APIs and future versions of existing APIs. I’m not crazy about the term "API consumer" and could bike shed a bit on it. The problem being that alternative terms for "API consumer" have been taken in OpenStack land. “developer” is used for contributor developers building OpenStack itself, “user” is used for operators deploying OpenStack, and “end user” has too many meanings. “API consumer” makes it clear what side of the API the working group audience falls on. I wouldn't mind "API user", I think it conveys intent but doesn't sound as stilted as "API consumer”. I read through the "#topic mission statement” [1] of the last API WG meeting. There is a lot of support for Stefano’s take on the mission statement. As such I’ve proposed the following patch to the api-wg repo with the tweak from “API consumer” to “API user”. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/155911/ We’ve had a lot of discussion on it already so I think it’s time for people to have their final say. Let us know what you think! Thanks, Everett [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/api_wg/2015/api_wg.2015-02-12-16.00.log.html#l-17
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
