On 03/08/2015 08:10 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and document
it, that will be great for guiding developer how to add new API.
I know we didn't want extension for API. But I think we still
need modularity. I don't think we should put everything in a single
file, that file will become huge in the future and hard to maintenance.
I don't think everything should be in a single file either. In fact,
I've never advocated for that.
We can make the 'extension' not configurable. Replace 'extension' with
another name, deprecate the extension info api int he future.... But
that is not mean we should put everything in a file.
I didn't say that in my email. I'm not sure where you got the impression
I want to put everything in one file?
For modularity, we need define what should be in a separated module(it
is extension now.) There are three cases:
1. Add new resource
This is totally worth to put in a separated module.
Agreed.
2. Add new sub-resource
like server-tags, I prefer to put in a separated module, I don't
think put another 100 lines code in the servers.py is good choice.
Agreed, which is exactly what I said in my email:
"Similarly, new microversion API functionality should live in a
module, as a top-level (or subcollection) Controller in
/nova/api/openstack/compute/, and should not be in the
/nova/api/openstack/compute/plugins/ directory. Why? Because it's
not a plugin."
3. extend attributes and methods for a existed resource
like add new attributes for servers, we can choice one of existed
module to put it in. Just like this patch
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/155853/
But for servers-tags, it's sub-resource, we can put it in its-own
module.
Agreed, and that's what I put in my email.
If we didn't want to support extension right now, we can begin from not
show servers-tags in extension info API first. That means extension info
is freeze now. We deprecated the extension info api in later version.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Could you elaborate? What I
am asking for is for new functionality (like the server-tags
subcollection resource), just add a new module called
/nova/api/openstack/compute/server_tags.py, create a Controller object
in that file with the new server tags resource, and don't use any of the
API extensions framework whatsoever.
In addition to that, for the changes to the main GET
/servers/{server_id} resource, use microversions to decorate the
/nova/api/openstack/compute/servers.py.Controller.show() method for 2.4
and add a "tags" key to the dict (note: NOT a "os-server-tags:tags" key)
returned by GET /servers/{server_id}. No use of API extensions needed.
Best,
-jay
Thanks
Alex
2015-03-08 8:31 GMT+08:00 Jay Pipes <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi Stackers,
Now that microversions have been introduced to the Nova API (meaning
we can now have novaclient request, say, version 2.3 of the Nova API
using the special X-OpenStack-Nova-API-Version HTTP header), is
there any good reason to require API extensions at all for *new*
functionality.
Sergey Nikitin is currently in the process of code review for the
final patch that adds server instance tagging to the Nova API:
https://review.openstack.org/#__/c/128940
<https://review.openstack.org/#/c/128940>
Unfortunately, for some reason I really don't understand, Sergey is
being required to create an API extension called "os-server-tags" in
order to add the server tag functionality to the API. The patch
implements the 2.4 Nova API microversion, though, as you can see
from this part of the patch:
https://review.openstack.org/#__/c/128940/43/nova/api/__openstack/compute/plugins/v3/__server_tags.py
<https://review.openstack.org/#/c/128940/43/nova/api/openstack/compute/plugins/v3/server_tags.py>
What is the point of creating a new "plugin"/API extension for this
new functionality? Why can't we just modify the
nova/api/openstack/compute/__server.py Controller.show() method and
decorate it with a 2.4 microversion that adds a "tags" attribute to
the returned server dictionary?
https://github.com/openstack/__nova/blob/master/nova/api/__openstack/compute/servers.py#__L369
<https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/compute/servers.py#L369>
Because we're using an API extension for this new server tags
functionality, we are instead having the extension "extend" the
server dictionary with an "os-server-tags:tags" key containing the
list of string tags.
This is ugly and pointless. We don't need to use API extensions any
more for this stuff.
A client knows that server tags are supported by the 2.4 API
microversion. If the client requests the 2.4+ API, then we should
just include the "tags" attribute in the server dictionary.
Similarly, new microversion API functionality should live in a
module, as a top-level (or subcollection) Controller in
/nova/api/openstack/compute/, and should not be in the
/nova/api/openstack/compute/__plugins/ directory. Why? Because it's
not a plugin.
Why are we continuing to use these awkward, messy, and cumbersome
API extensions?
Please, I am begging the Nova core team. Let us stop this madness.
No more API extensions.
Best,
-jay
______________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
OpenStack-dev-request@lists.__openstack.org?subject:__unsubscribe
<http://[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/__cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/__openstack-dev
<http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
