True, manila is currently using the same header; but given that nova and ironic are supporting the new header recommendation, this has come up for discussion in the manila community.
In any case, the use of the prefix “X-“, and project names within the header is not recommended. Please refer to the API Working Group’s recommendation in this regard: http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/microversion_specification.html The example already suggests what needs to be done in case of the identity project ☺ -- Goutham From: Steve Martinelli <[email protected]> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 6:22 AM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Version header for OpenStack microversion support Looks like Manila is using the service name instead of type (X-OpenStack-Manila-API-Version) according to this link anyway: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/manila/devref/api_microversion_dev.html Keystone can follow the cross project spec and use the service type (Identity instead of Keystone). On Jun 17, 2016 12:44 PM, "Ed Leafe" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Jun 17, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Henry Nash <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > We are currently in the process of implementing microversion support in > keystone - and are obviously trying to follow the cross-projec spec for this > (http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/microversion_specification.html). > > One thing I noticed was that the header specified in this spec is of the form: > > OpenStack-API-Version: [SERVICE_TYPE] [X,Y] > > for example: > > OpenStack-API-Version: identity 3.7 > > However, from what i can see of the current implementations I have seen of > microversioning in OpenStack (Nova, Manilla), they use service-specific > headers, e.g. > > X-OpenStack-Nova-API-Version: 2.12 > > My question is whether there a plan to converge on the generalized header > format….or are we keep with the service-specific headers? I’d obviously like > to implement the correct one for keystone. Yes, the plan is to converge on the more generic headers. The Nova headers (don’t know about Manilla) pre-date the API WG spec, and were the motivation for development of that spec. We’ve even made it possible to accept both header formats [0] until things can be migrated to the recommended format. [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/300077/ -- Ed Leafe __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe<http://[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
