I think the tasks stuff is something different, though. A task is a
(potentially) long-running operation. So it would be possible for an action
to result in the creation of a task. As the proposal stands today, the
actions we've been looking at are an alternative to the document-oriented
PATCH HTTP verb. There was nearly unanimous consensus that we found "POST
/resources/actions/verb {inputs to verb}" to be a more expressive and
intuitive way of accomplishing some workflows than trying to use JSON-PATCH
documents.On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jay Pipes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Sean Dague <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 05/30/2014 02:22 PM, Hemanth Makkapati wrote: >> > Hello All, >> > I'm writing to notify you of the approach the Glance community has >> > decided to take for doing functional API. Also, I'm writing to solicit >> > your feedback on this approach in the light of cross-project API >> > consistency. >> > >> > At the Atlanta Summit, the Glance team has discussed introducing >> > functional API in Glance so as to be able to expose operations/actions >> > that do not naturally fit into the CRUD-style. A few approaches are >> > proposed and discussed here >> > < >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-adding-functional-operations-to-api >> >. >> > We have all converged on the approach to include 'action' and action >> > type in the URL. For instance, 'POST >> > /images/{image_id}/actions/{action_type}'. >> > >> > However, this is different from the way Nova does actions. Nova includes >> > action type in the payload. For instance, 'POST >> > /servers/{server_id}/action {"type": "<action_type>", ...}'. At this >> > point, we hit a cross-project API consistency issue mentioned here >> > < >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-cross-project-consistency-across-rest-apis >> > >> > (under the heading 'How to act on resource - cloud perform on >> > resources'). Though we are differing from the way Nova does actions and >> > hence another source of cross-project API inconsistency , we have a few >> > reasons to believe that Glance's way is helpful in certain ways. >> > >> > The reasons are as following: >> > 1. Discoverability of operations. It'll be easier to expose permitted >> > actions through schemas a json home document living at >> > /images/{image_id}/actions/. >> > 2. More conducive for rate-limiting. It'll be easier to rate-limit >> > actions in different ways if the action type is available in the URL. >> > 3. Makes more sense for functional actions that don't require a request >> > body (e.g., image deactivation). >> > >> > At this point we are curious to see if the API conventions group >> > believes this is a valid and reasonable approach. >> > Any feedback is much appreciated. Thank you! >> >> Honestly, I like POST /images/{image_id}/actions/{action_type} much >> better than ACTION being embedded in the body (the way nova currently >> does it), for the simple reason of reading request logs: >> > > I agree that not including the action type in the POST body is much nicer > and easier to read in logs, etc. > > That said, I prefer to have resources actually be things that the software > creates. An action isn't created. It is performed. > > I would prefer to replace the term "action(s)" with the term "task(s)", as > is proposed for Nova [1]. > > Then, I'd be happy as a pig in, well, you know. > > Best, > -jay > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86938/ > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
