I think we should do as Dave mentioned, assess and rename.
> On Mar 15, 2017, at 2:18 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't like duplicating routes either but I thought it would ease the > transition rather than just changing the route. So no code duplication, > just 2 routes that go to the same place: > > $r->get("/internal/api/$version/steering")->over( authenticated => 1 )->to( > 'Steering#index', namespace => 'API::DeliveryService' ); > $r->get("/api/$version/steering")->over( authenticated => 1 )->to( > 'Steering#index', namespace => 'API::DeliveryService' ); > > And then we circle back and delete > > $r->get("/internal/api/$version/steering")->over( authenticated => 1 )->to( > 'Steering#index', namespace => 'API::DeliveryService' ); > > at some point. > > And yes, this internal namespace was introduced for comcast-specific > reasons that I believe no longer exist. > > Jeremy > > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:13 PM, David Neuman > wrote: > > > At least a few of those (Steering, federations) were put in the "internal" > > namespace to work around Comcast specific issues. I don't know that I like > > the idea of duplicating routes, if anything we should see what is impacted > > by moving them out of the internal namespace. > > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Jeremy Mitchell > > wrote: > > > > > Currently, we have a number of API routes scoped as "internal". Here are > > a > > > few examples: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/blob/ > > > master/traffic_ops/app/lib/TrafficOpsRoutes.pm#L516 > > > > > > I believe this is going to make it more difficult as we try to implement > > > more granular roles / capabilities coupled with tenancy. > > > > > > So I'm proposing that we create a duplicate non-internal route like this, > > > for example: > > > > > > $r->get("/api/$version/steering")->over( authenticated => 1 )->to( > > > 'Steering#index', namespace => 'API::DeliveryService' ); > > > > > > that way we can slowly move away from the "internal" routes and > > eventually > > > deprecate them. > > > > > > I think with our upcoming more robust role / tenancy model, there is no > > > longer a need for "internal". > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Jeremy > > > > >
