I'm still on holiday, but just chiming in to say I like and support the direction here. I'm impressed by the structured and holistic approach on this. Also agree it is far better to have a consistent "new" v2 api in 9.x or 10.0 at the expense of back-compat for existing v2 users -- maintaining three versions is not going to happen.
BTW: OpenAPI is the new name for what we earlier referred to as the Swagger specification. The name Swagger is still the brand name for some OpenAPI tooling - see https://swagger.io/blog/api-strategy/difference-between-swagger-and-openapi/ Jan > 15. jul. 2022 kl. 05:17 skrev David Smiley <dsmi...@apache.org>: > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 4:31 PM Jason Gerlowski <gerlowsk...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> I think it would be best to tackle one limited area first so we can see >> it in practice both at the surface and implementation. >> >> I think that makes sense, assuming that by "tackling" you mean >> updating the API path/verb/etc and moving the "real" logic over to the >> v2 class? I'd rather we not take a "limited area" approach to getting >> consensus around the API endpoint design itself, as IMO that'd produce >> a less cohesive result. I don't think that was what you meant, but >> just double-checking. >> > > Sure -- API first. There may be some implementation realities that cause > us to reconsider choices but we can take that as it happens. > > ~ David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@solr.apache.org
