2011/8/25 Mellquist, Peter <peter.mellqu...@hp.com>: > but ... in regard to API design this approach leaves something to be > desired. There is much value in designing the APIs up front to ensure > consistency, a cohesive presentation model and to ensure that API best > practices are followed. APIs need to be designed and this requires an up > front definition and review.
Once again: >>> This is completely orthogonal to when the discussion about the API >>> happens. It can happen as early as you like, you can (informally) >>> publish the expected API as early as you want. Just because we stick the API spec in the code repository so that they can be kept in sync, doesn't mean that it just magically appears out of nowhere with no prior discussions. We can right now, today, this very instant, start discussing and defining the API for some feature that won't land for another 7 releases. I don't care. I just don't want it to be published as part of something called "The OpenStack API" any sooner or later than when OpenStack actually supports it. We have something called the OpenStack API v1.1. There's no such thing as OpenStack 1.1, and there's no other version of OpenStack that supports the OpenStack API v1.1. Why is fixing this so controversial? -- Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
