I also do not think Knox should attempt to mediate between service API
versions. There are a few key points here.
1) When services rev their API version they _should_ continue to accept
the old version with the old behavior. This is in fact the primary
reason that the REST community has more or less settled on putting the
API version in the path of the URL.
2) With the API version in place client can be sure about which API
contract they are using. If Knox made that decision for them they would
have no way to tell. Granted you can make the argument that it should
always be backwards compatible. However if this were the case there
wouldn't really have been a need to rev the API version.
On 5/6/14 7:30 AM, larry mccay wrote:
Yeah, Dilli -
I don't think there is anything we can do about that.
*When* the URL is different than it will be up to the client to have to
know that.
We certainly don't want to be in the business of trying to normalize
contracts across versions.
I'm not sure that it will be confusing but it will limit the use of clients
across service versions - with or without Knox in the picture unless it is
built into the client code somehow.
Nature of the beast.
--larry
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Dilli Arumugam <[email protected]>wrote:
Does client of Knox has the responsibility of constructing the right Knox
URL based on the version of service running in the cluster?
If Knox is fronting multiple clusters with each cluster having different
version of service, the client would construct different URL patterns based
on the version of the service?
This could be confusing to the end client.
Thanks
Dilli
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:46 PM, larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote:
They are willing to revert and he followed up with an approach that
matches
what my expectations would have been. Which would be a given client only
using one version at a time. Then eventually they would deprecate and
retire entire versions.
As I said in the jira - that would be what I would expect and would
probably be great for components to do but we will need to likely use the
component versioning anyway because not all components will do it that
way
and some don't even have a version indicator.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Kevin Minder
<[email protected]>wrote:
Seems to me they should still be reving their version number. For
example
.../v1/queue
.../v2/job
Not that we have any say in the matter.
On 5/5/14 3:14 PM, larry mccay wrote:
All -
The discussion on jira:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-7010leads me to believe
that we will need to deal with multiple API versions
via component release versions - as Kevin has spoken of as well.
Templeton is removing the .../v1/queue APIs and adding a .../v1/job
APIs.
The way that they seem to evolve APIs is to deprecate something for 2
releases and then remove them. Presumably the notice to prepare to
migrate
is used as "backward compatibility" - which may make sense.
With the addition of service params in 0.4.0, we may be able to
indicate
the version as a param and have the contributors load the appropriate
rewrite rules. Otherwise, we could also add an explicit version
element
to
the service definitions.
Either way, we will need to default the versions to the supported
component
versions in 0.4.0 - since we don't have any explicit version mechanism
yet.
Thoughts?
--larry
--
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or
entity
to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
confidential,
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please contact the sender
immediately
and delete it from your system. Thank You.
--
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately
and delete it from your system. Thank You.
--
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately
and delete it from your system. Thank You.
