On 06/16/2015 04:12 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
2015-06-16 2:07 GMT+09:00 Jay Pipes <[email protected]>:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova [2]
and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic -- instead
of the name of the API -- i.e. "OpenStack Compute" and "OpenStack Bare
Metal" -- in the HTTP header that a client passes to indicate a preference
for or knowledge of a particular API microversion.
The original spec said that the HTTP header should contain the name of the
service type returned by the Keystone service catalog (which is also the
official name of the REST API). I don't understand why the spec was changed
retroactively and why Nova has been changed to return
X-OpenStack-Nova-API-Version instead of X-OpenStack-Compute-API-Version HTTP
headers [4].
To be blunt, Nova is the *implementation* of the OpenStack Compute API.
Ironic is the *implementation* of the OpenStack BareMetal API.
The HTTP headers should never have been changed like this, IMHO, and I'm
disappointed that they were. In fact, it looks like a very select group of
individuals pushed through this change [5] with little to no input from the
mailing list or community.
Yeah, that is my regret now. Sorry about that.
It was better to take conversation more on ml or some place.
I apologize for making you feel bad about it, that wasn't my intent,
Ken'ichi. :(
but I have the same question with Dmitry.
If using service names in the header, how to define these name before that?
Current big-tent situation can make duplications between projects like
X-OpenStack-Container-API-Version or something.
Project names are unique even if they are just implementations.
Well, I actually like Kevin's suggestion of just removing the
project/service-type altogether and using OpenStack-API-Version, but to
answer your question above, I'd just say that having a single API for
"OpenStack Containers" has value. See my previous responses about why
having the API mean a single thing allows developers to better use our APIs.
Since no support for these headers has yet to land in the client packages,
can we please reconsider this?
IMO, I am fine to change them if we build a consensus about that.
My main concern is just consistency between projects.
Understood.
In addition, Tempest also doesn't support/test microversions at all yet.
So it seems good timing to reconsider it now.
Good point,
-jay
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
