I'm looking at the Nova spec, and it seems very taylored to a specific
GUI. I'm also not sure that 17128 errors is more useful than 500+ errors
when presenting to the user (the following in my twitter stream made me
think about that this morning -
https://twitter.com/NINK/status/535299029383380992)
500+ also better describes the significant figures we're talking about here.
-Sean
On 11/20/2014 11:28 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> The only thing I want to caution against is making a SQL-specific
> choice. In the case of some other backends, it may not be possible (for
> an extremely large dataset) to get a full count, where SQL does this
> fairly elegantly. For example, LDAP (in some cases) may have an
> administrative limit that will say that no more than 10,000 entries
> would be returned; likely you’re going to have an issue, since you need
> to issue the query and see how many things match, if you hit the overall
> limit you’ll get the same count every time (but possibly a different
> dataset).
>
> I want to be very careful that we’re not recommending functionality as a
> baseline that should be used as a pattern across all similar APIs,
> especially since we have some backends/storage systems that can’t
> elegantly always support it.
>
> Personally, I like Gerrit’s model (as Sean described) - with the above
> caveat that not all backends support this type of count.
>
> Cheers,
> Morgan
>
>> On Nov 20, 2014, at 8:04 AM, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com
>> <mailto:sorla...@nicira.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The Nova proposal appears to be identical to neutron's, at least from
>> a consumer perspective.
>>
>> If I were to pick a winner, I'd follow Sean's advice regarding the
>> 'more' attribute in responses, and put the total number of resources
>> there; I would also take Jay's advice of including the total only if
>> requested with a query param. In this way a user can retrieve the
>> total number of items regardless of the current pagination index (in
>> my first post I suggested the total number should be returned only on
>> the first page of results).
>>
>> Therefore one could ask for a total number of resources with something
>> like the following:
>>
>> GET /some_resources?include_total=1
>>
>> and obtain a response like the following:
>>
>> {'resources': [{meh}, {meh}, {meh_again}],
>> 'something': {
>> '_links': {'prev': ..., 'next': ...},
>> 'total': agazillion}
>> }
>>
>> where the exact structure and naming of 'something' depends on the
>> outcome of the discussion at [1]
>>
>> Salvatore
>>
>> [1]
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/133660/7/guidelines/representation_structure.rst
>>
>> On 20 November 2014 15:24, Christopher Yeoh <cbky...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:cbky...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:47:16 +0100
>> Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com
>> <mailto:sorla...@nicira.com>> wrote:
>>
>> > Aloha guardians of the API!
>> >
>> > I haven recently* reviewed a spec for neutron [1] proposing a
>> > distinct URI for returning resource count on list operations.
>> > This proposal is for selected neutron resources, but I believe the
>> > topic is general enough to require a guideline for the API working
>> > group. Your advice is therefore extremely valuable.
>> >
>> > In a nutshell the proposal is to retrieve resource count in the
>> > following way:
>> > GET /<prefix>/<resource_name>/count
>> >
>> > In my limited experience with RESTful APIs, I've never encountered
>> > one that does counting in this way. This obviously does not mean
>> it's
>> > a bad idea. I think it's not great from a usability perspective to
>> > require two distinct URIs to fetch the first page and then the total
>> > number of elements. I reckon the first response page for a list
>> > operation might include also the total count. For example:
>> >
>> > {'resources': [{meh}, {meh}, {meh_again}],
>> > 'resource_count': 55
>> > <link_to_next_page>}
>> >
>> > I am however completely open to consider other alternatives.
>> > What is your opinion on this matter?
>>
>> FWIW there is a nova spec proposed for counting resources as
>> well (I think it might have been previously approved for Juno).
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134279/
>>
>> I haven't compared the two, but I can't think of a reason we'd
>> need to be any different between projects here.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Salvatore
>> >
>> >
>> > * it's been 10 days now
>> >
>> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/102199/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> <mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> <mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
