Added [swift] to topic.

On 03/03/2015 07:41 AM, Matthew Farina wrote:

Unfortunately the documentation for OpenStack has some holes. What you
are calling a private API may be something missed in the documentation.
Is there a documentation bug on the issue? If not one should be created.

There is no indication that the X-Timestamp or X-Object-Meta-Mtime HTTP headers are part of the public Swift API:

I don't believe this is a bug in the Swift API documentation, either. John Dickinson (cc'd) mentioned that the X-Timestamp HTTP header is required for the Swift implementation of container replication (John, please do correct me if wrong on that).

But that is the private implementation and not part of the public API.

In practice OpenStack isn't a specification and implementation. The
documentation has enough missing information you can't treat it this
way. If you want to contribute to improving the documentation I'm sure
the documentation team would appreciate it. The last time I looked there
were a number of undocumented public swift API details.

The bug here is not in the documentation. The bug is that Horizon is coded to rely on HTTP headers that are not in the Swift API. Horizon should be fixed to use <DICT>.get('X-Timestamp') instead of doing <DICT>['X-Timestamp'] in its view pages for container details. There are already patches up that the Horizon developers have, IMO erroneously, rejected stating this is a problem in Ceph RadosGW for not properly following the Swift API).


Best of luck,
Matt Farina

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Radoslaw Zarzynski
< <>> wrote:


    I would like discuss a problem which can be seen in Horizon: breaking
    the boundaries of public, well-specified Object Storage API in favour
    of utilizing a Swift-specific extensions. Ticket #1297173 [1] may serve
    as a good example of such violation. It is about relying on
    non-standard (in the terms of OpenStack Object Storage API v1) and
    undocumented HTTP header provided by Swift. In order to make
    Ceph RADOS Gateway work correctly with Horizon, developers had to
    inspect sources of Swift and implement the same behaviour.

     From my perspective, that practise breaks the the mission of OpenStack
    which is much more than delivering yet another IaaS/PaaS implementation.
    I think its main goal is to provide a universal set of APIs covering all
    functional areas relevant for cloud computing, and to place that set
    of APIs in front as many implementations as possible. Having an open
    source reference implementation of a particular API is required to prove
    its viability, but is secondary to having an open and documented API.

    I have full understanding that situations where the public OpenStack
    interfaces are insufficient to get the work done might exist.
    However, introduction of dependency on implementation-specific feature
    (especially without giving the users a choice via e.g. some
    configuration option) is not the proper way to deal with the problem.
     From my point of view, such cases should be handled with adoption of
    new, carefully designed and documented version of the given API.

    In any case I think that Horizon, at least basic functionality, should
    work with any storage which provides Object Storage API.
    That being said, I'm willing to contribute such patches, if we decide
    to go that way.

    Best regards,
    Radoslaw Zarzynski


    OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Reply via email to