Thanks for the work so far guys! We have ~24 hours before we cut RC2. So lets wrap up as many operator API calls as possible.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:45 AM, haosdent <[email protected]> wrote: > Awesome! Let me post a patch for this shortly. > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Vinod Kone <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, seems ok to change the return type of *all *the RPC handlers to >> >> http::Response to make it more flexible. >> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Zhou Z Xing <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > yes, the same question >> > >> > For some of the APIs, in addition to 'BadRequest', 'Forbidden' is also >> > required. >> > >> > Thanks & Best Wishes, >> > >> > Tom Xing(邢舟) >> > Emerging Technology Institute, IBM China Software Development Lab >> > ---------------------- >> > IBM China Software Development Laboratory (CSDL) >> > Notes ID:Zhou Z Xing/China/IBM >> > Phone :86-10-82450442 >> > e-Mail :[email protected] >> > Address :Building No.28, ZhongGuanCun Software Park, No.8 Dong Bei Wang >> > West Road, Haidian District, Beijing, P.R.China 100193 >> > 地址 :中国北京市海淀区东北旺西路8号 中关村软件园28号楼 100193 >> > >> > >> > [image: Inactive hide details for haosdent ---2016-06-07 上午 >> > 08:43:46---Currently, almost our v1 Operator API return value type is >> v]haosdent >> > ---2016-06-07 上午 08:43:46---Currently, almost our v1 Operator API return >> > value type is v1::master::Response. >> > >> > From: haosdent <[email protected]> >> > To: dev <[email protected]> >> > Cc: Vinod Kone <[email protected]>, Abhishek Dasgupta < >> > [email protected]>, Jay JN Guo/China/IBM@IBMCN, Zhou Z >> > Xing/China/IBM@IBMCN, Qian AZ Zhang/China/IBM@IBMCN, Yong Feng < >> > [email protected]>, Anand Mazumdar <[email protected]>, Shuai Lin < >> > [email protected]> >> > Date: 2016-06-07 上午 08:43 >> > Subject: [HTTP API] Questions about v1 Operator API return value type >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > >> > >> > Currently, almost our v1 Operator API return value type >> > is v1::master::Response. >> > Now we validation `Call` by `validation::master::call::validate(call, >> > principal)` and return `BadRequest` if it could not pass. >> > In some cases, we need to validate the `Call` with other parameters. For >> > example, >> > >> > ``` >> > Option<Error> validate = validation::operation::validate( >> > operation.create(), slave->checkpointedResources, principal); >> > ``` >> > >> > 1. Could we delegate this validation into the implementation of API? If >> > delegate the validation to API, the return type would be >> > `process::http::Response` because of `BadRequest` could not convert to >> > `v1::master::Response`. >> > >> > 2. And for keep consistent, should we change existing RPC handlers' >> return >> > type to `v1::master::Response` as well? >> > >> > -- >> > Best Regards, >> > Haosdent Huang >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > Best Regards, > Haosdent Huang >
