> -----Original Message----- > From: engine-devel-boun...@ovirt.org [mailto:engine-devel-boun...@ovirt.org] > On Behalf Of Livnat Peer > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 1:39 PM > To: Mike Kolesnik > Cc: engine-devel; Simon Grinberg > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Fwd: Problem in REST API handling/displaying of > logical networks > > On 05/07/12 13:23, Mike Kolesnik wrote: > >> On 07/05/2012 12:19 PM, Livnat Peer wrote: > >>>> I'll give you one scenario and I'm sure there are lot more: > >>>>> delete all unused networks .... > >>>>> > >>> not strong enough use case in my opinion > >> > >> i do see sense in this, and based on my experience of closing ~5 bugs > >> on this for SD and explaining like > >> ~10 times on ML to users why /api/storagedomains/xxx doesn't have > >> <status>, I'm sure it should be done this way as it creates clear > >> differentiation between root-resource and cluster-resource (shared) > >> status. > >> > >>> to add this yet another confusing property. > >> > >> you not adding another property, you fix existent (which was > >> incorrectly used/implemented). > >> > >>> > >>> BTW - If a requirement will get from the field to add properties we > >>> can do them later why add something we think is not needed. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Michael Pasternak > >> RedHat, ENG-Virtualization R&D > >> > > > > I think we got a little bit off the topic here, so if you don't mind I would > like to see if everyone agrees on this: > > > > We have at the api/networks collection these properties and their possible > values: > > status - OPERATIONAL, NON_OPERATIONAL > > display - true, false > > > > We (as far as I understood) agreed that these fields causea problem in this > context since they can be different for a given network, and current > representation will return the network element multiple times with only > difference in either one of these fields. > > Also I understood we agreed that this is bad behaviour (even a bug) and we > don't want to support this anymore. > > > > This gives 2 choices IMHO: > > 1. Fix the behaviour but keep the fields with some default values. > > 2. Fix the behaviour and remove these field as well, which isn't really > breaking an API since the behaviour was broken to begin with. > > > > So a summary of the thread so far: > > Simon, Miki Ori and me voted +1 for option #2 > > Michael wants to change the value of the status field to attach/detach > > Anyone else wants to vote in on this? >
It seems like #2 is more reasonable. +1 for #2 > > > Please comment what option seems valid (I though we were going to the > direction of fix #2). > > > > Thanks, > > Mike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Engine-devel mailing list > Engine-devel@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel _______________________________________________ Engine-devel mailing list Engine-devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
