On 16 July 2014 12:43, William Reade <william.re...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Ian Booth <ian.bo...@canonical.com> wrote:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> To echo what Aaron says, in any distributed system, it is almost always a
>> mistake not to design for bulk api calls. Even if you don't think they are
>> needed for the initial use cases, they will almost always be needed at
>> some
>> point later. It is trivial to use a bulk call with a single value, but it
>> is not
>> trivial to go the other way. This topic has been discussed previously in
>> the
>> juju-core space. I had thought that William had (correctly) mandated the
>> bulk
>> calls were to be used for our distributed apis.
>
>
> I did indeed; and I am *sick to death* of this whole topic. Please JFDI; and
> don't leave passive-aggressive comments in the code complaining about it,
> and don't go quietly implementing non-bulk APIs because you've independently
> decided that, well, in *this* particular case there *really* isn't a need
> for it -- we've already been bitten by at least one of those.
For the record, the complaints were about calls that *could not ever* be
bulk, by their very nature. But I am also trying to move on from that
history. This is not the juju-core API and our initial proposal for
the charm store API *did* use a bulk call mechanism for almost all endpoints.
I have also proposed a solution that keeps the current API as is,
but adds a general bulk call interface (the
meta/$endpoint?id=$id0[&id=$id1...][$otherflags]
endpoint I described above). AFAICS with that, we can satisfy both
camps. What do you think?
cheers,
rog.
--
Juju-dev mailing list
Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
