On 02/02/2015 08:58 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
This is pretty good but I think it leaves unresolved the biggest
question I've had about this process: What's so great about
converging the APIs? If we can narrow or clarify that aspect, good
to go.

+1, really good point

The implication with your statement above is that there is some kind
of ideal which maps, at least to some extent, across the rather
diverse set of resources, interactions and transactions that are
present in the OpenStack ecosystem. It may not be your intent but
the above sounds like "we want all the APIs to be kinda similar in
feel" or "when someone is using an OpenStack-related API they'll be
able to share some knowledge between then with regard to how stuff

I'm not sure how realistic^Wuseful that is when we're in an
environment with APIs with such drastically different interactions
as (to just select three) Swift, Nova and Ceilometer.

even though there are drastically different interactions among the services of openstack, i think there is some value to those apis having a similar feel to them. i always find it to be useful when i can generally infer some of the details about an api by it's general structure/design. imo, the guidelines will help to bake in some of these inferences.

unfortunately, baking a "feel" into an api guideline is more of an analog task. so, very difficult to codify... but i can dream =)

We've seen this rather clearly in the recent debates about handling

Now, there's nothing in what you say above that actually straight
out disagrees with my response, but I think there's got to be some
way we can remove the ambiguity or narrow the focus. The need to
remove ambiguity is why the discussion of having a mission statement
came up.


I think where we want to focus our attention is:

* strict adherence to correct HTTP
* proper use of response status codes
* effective (and correct) use of a media types
* some guidance on how to deal with change/versioning
* and _maybe_ a standard for providing actionable error responses
* setting not standards but guidelines for anything else

really solid starting point, the last point deserves emphasis too. i think we should be very mindful of the idea that these are guidelines not hard standards, but i haven't heard anyone in the meetings referring to them as standards. it seemed like we had consensus about the "guidelines" part.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to