On 02/22/2016 07:00 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
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.
+1
* 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?
i'm wondering if the ship hasn't sailed on this as well. i also think it
might be a little thrashing for us to oscillate back and forth on these
headers. otoh, they aren't *widely* implemented yet, still i'm not even
sure we could put this genie back in the bottle.
i think it might be nice to discuss this one more time at the next meeting.
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.
i not following the "deep in the negotation" part, would you mind
expanding on this idea a little more?
regards,
mike
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
