On Tue, 3 Feb 2015, Everett Toews wrote:
On Feb 3, 2015, at 10:07 AM, michael mccune <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:58 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
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.
It’s early days in the API WG. Coming up with a list like this at
the outset seems overly restrictive. How does something get on the
list? How does something get off the list? Whatever the answer, I can
see it taking a lot of wheel spinning. I prefer to keep things a bit
more open early on and let it evolve.
Interesting. I made that list above because I imagined it to be (and
wanted it to be) less restrictive (that is, more abstract and general)
than many of the proposed guidelines which have come across the api-wg
gerrit radar. We talk quite a bit about the content of request and
response bodies. This suprises me very much in the context of HTTP APIs
where resource representation can be so diverse.
Items 2-5 are essentially item 1 restated, modulo some "just do what
the rest of the world does".
Item 6 is a way of saying "we need to be sure that the _reader_
knows these are guidelines not standards". Within the group we've
certainly agreed they are guidelines but a lot of other people react
otherwise, so it's just something to be clear about.
 And we haven't even begun to talk about content negotiation,
which is a shame.
Chris Dent tw:@anticdent freenode:cdent
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)