Hi Zack, Just to make this clear, we would have both packages:
org.jclouds.openstack.neutron.v2_0.* org.jclouds.openstack.neutron.v2.* ... and then deprecate the v2_0 one in 1.8, to be removed in jclouds 2.0? WDYT? /jd On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Zack Shoylev <[email protected]>wrote: > I would hold off on separate renaming PRs and here is why: > > One of the best ways to deprecate the existing neutron implementation is > to deprecate it while having an alternative namespace with the refactored > one. (deprecate and and add the refactored neutron in the same commit). So > this would be my suggestion. > > ________________________________ > From: Jeremy Daggett [[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 12:23 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: neutron refactoring - breaking changes > > Hi Zack, > > I feel that we should also change the Java package namespace as a part of > this refactoring. It does not follow the standard OpenStack API naming > convention and their additive progression from API release to release. > > All OpenStack APIs should be referenced with a major version only: "v2" > versus "v2_0" > > That said, I suggest that we do this refactoring now, to unify the > OpenStack version numbers across jclouds. The package namespace should > change from: > > "org.jclouds.openstack.neutron.v2_0" -> "org.jclouds.openstack.neutron.v2" > > In my experience with the APIs over the past several years, "v2_0" doesn't > really mean anything to me and it ties the implementation to a specific > version. APIs are additive, so "v2.2" is still the "v2" API with new > features/additions. > > I would be more than happy to submit a PR to make this happen. We also > should do this with the other incubating Glance APIs and any future work > with OpenStack. > > Comments, questions, concerns? > > /jd > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Zack Shoylev <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hello, > > There is a list of proposed changes to refactor neutron in > jclouds-labs-openstack as detailed here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg04477.html > > I would like to hear back from users who are currently using the API - is > this something we should or should not be doing? The problem is that we do > not have a "happy" deprecation path for these changes. One good suggestion > I've heard so far was to deprecate in 1.7 and put the breaking changes in > 1.8. > > Thanks! > Zack > >
