On 02/21/2016 01:41 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 02/21/2016 12:50 PM, Chris Dent wrote: >> >> In a recent api-wg meeting I set forth the idea that it is both a >> bad idea to add lots of different headers and to add headers which >> have meaning in the name of the header (rather than just the value). >> This proved to a bit confusing, so I was asked to write it up. I >> did: >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/280381/ >> >> When I did, the best example for how _not_ to do things is the way in >> which we are currently doing microversion headers. >> >> So two questions: >> >> * Is my position on header non proliferation right? > > Yes, I believe so. > >> * Is it so right that we should consider doing microversions >> differently? > > Ship has sailed on a number of things, including this. I *do* think it > would be great to just use OpenStack-API-Version: $SERVICE_TYPE X.Y, > however we'll need to add another microversion to support that of > course. Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?
Actually, the headers can't be fully fixed in a microversion, because they are deep in the negotiation. We're stuck maintaining the old headers pretty much forever. -Sean -- Sean Dague http://dague.net __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev