On 30 October 2013 01:51, haruka tanizawa <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John! > > Thank you for your reply:) > Sorry for inline comment. > > >> We also need something that doesn't clash with the cross-service >> request id, as that is doing something slightly different. Would >> "idempotent-request-id" work better? > > Oh, yes. > Did you say about this BP( > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/cross-service-request-id )? > (I am going to go that HK session.) > So, I will user your opinion, and I try to go forward. > > >> Also, I assume we are only adding this into the v3 API? We should >> close the v2 API for additions I guess? > > Now I only adapt into v2 API, so it is aloso necessary to cope with the v3 > API. > Did I answer your question? We certainly need to add it into the v3 API, all new features must go there.
However, to ensure the v3 API gets released in Icehouse, I would love to close the v2 API for changes, but perhaps I am being too harsh, and we should certainly only do that after the point where we promise not to back backwards in-compatible changes in the v3 API. John _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
