Thanks for the clarification Sam.

Its good to know where the mission of the API working group starts and
stops.  During the meetup discussions, my understanding was that the
working group would recommend the technologies to use while building apis
(e.g. Pecan, validation frameworks, etc) and were in the process of
looking into tools such as warlock.  Hence the recommendation to add
another library into the mix for evaluation, based on advise by other
stackers in the community.

Your response clarifies that the aim of the API working group is just to
recommend on standardizing the interfaces from various API's (which I am
looking forward to) and not the libraries used to implement that interface.

For stackers who are interested in different validation frameworks to
implement validation, I recommend checking out Stoplight.


Amit Gandhi.

On 10/20/14, 9:36 AM, "Michael McCune" <> wrote:

>that's a great way to state it Sam.
>----- Original Message -----
>> Hi Amit,
>> Keeping in mind this viewpoint is nothing but my own personal view, my
>> recommendation would be to not mandate the use of a particular
>> framework, but to instead define what kind of validation clients should
>> expect the server to perform in general. For example, I would expect a
>> service to return an error code and not perform any action if I called
>> "Create server" but did not include a request body, but the actual
>>manner in
>> which that error is generated within the service does not matter from
>> client's perspective.
>> This is not to say the API Working Group wouldn't help you evaluate the
>> potential of Stoplight to meet the needs of a service. To the contrary,
>> clearly defining the expectations of a service's responses to requests,
>> you'll have a great idea of exactly what to look for in your
>>evaluation, and
>> your final decision would be based on objective results.
>> Thank you,
>> Sam Harwell
>OpenStack-dev mailing list

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to