Let's discuss this in community meeting. I would suggest drop support for older version at least until we release Murano 1.0. As soon as we start to guarantee backward compatibility we will introduce MinimalMuranoVersion instead of Version because format would not change but some particular template may require feature that was introduced after specified version.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Timur Sufiev <tsuf...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hi all! > > While adapting Murano's Dynamic UI to the new MuranoPL data input > format, I've encountered the need to add some new fields to it, which > meant that the 'Version' field also had to be added to Dynamic UI. So, > Dynamic UI definition without Version field is supposed to be of v.1 > while upcoming Murano 0.5 release will support Dynamic UI v.2 > processing (which produces data suitable for the MuranoPL in 0.5). > > But then the next questions arised. What if Murano 0.5 Dynamic UI > processor gets definition in v.1 format? Should it be able to process > it as well? If it should, then to which murano-api endpoint should it > pass the resulting object model? > > I suspect that we have to deal with a slightly broader scope: to which > extent should Murano components of each new version support the data > formats and APIs from the previous versions? I suggest to discuss this > question on the upcoming Murano's community meeting. > > -- > Timur Sufiev > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Sincerely yours Stanislav (Stan) Lagun Senior Developer Mirantis 35b/3, Vorontsovskaya St. Moscow, Russia Skype: stanlagun www.mirantis.com sla...@mirantis.com
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
