On Tue, Dec 20 2011, Brian Waldon wrote: > Backwards Compatibility > - At what level do you support backwards compatibility, if at all?
Using major version number as a sign of "we break compatibility" is a common and a good practice IMHO. > Unsupported Versions > - What do you do when a request is made with an unsupported version? HTTP 406 ? > With those goals in mind, I would like to propose we adopt the following > mechanism: > > - Use only major versions > - Allow backwards incompatibility between major versions So what's the point of not saying that you may not be breaking compatibility by adding a minor version usage for just new feature for example? > I would love to hear your feedback on this proposal, however, I'm not really > looking to get into a fight about what's more RESTful ;) I know we already > have several (slightly different) versioning mechanisms in place, but this > is something that can't be wrong. There's still a lot to figure out here, > but I think this is a good subset that we can reach an agreement on. In > order for OpenStack to be successful, we need to get these foundation pieces > right! I'm probably getting a little off-topic here, but what about API documentation and specification? I understand that Keystone is using WADL to specify its API, what's the plan for other OpenStack components? -- Julien Danjou // eNovance http://enovance.com // ✉ [email protected] ☎ +33 1 49 70 99 81 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
