A) It sounds like yore making an assumption about what the type of client is.
Some clients use WADL to generate stubs or validate contracts. Consider clients
like JAX-RS/CXF clients? If you change the WADL, you've changed the contract.
Like I said, I think this would be an edge case, but a key reason we offer API
contracts is to allow for predictability from the client side. You break that
is you change then contract.
B) No, the HTTP call would not change. An alternative would be for us to add
this to OS-KSVALIDATE which we just shipped. The call would then be:
DELETE /OS-KSVALIDATE/token
X-Auth_token: …
X-Subject-Token: {token_id}
From: Dolph Mathews <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:17:12 -0600
To: Ziad Sawalha <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Jorge Williams
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Dolph
Mathews <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Yee, Guang"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Keystone: is revoke token API "officially" supported
A) This wasn't documented at all (AFAIK), so there's no concern of breaking
contracts.
B) Even if it's moved to an extension, would the call change from it's current
form?:
DELETE /tokens/{token_id}
I'm not sure what the extension convention is here.
-Dolph Mathews
On Jan 26, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Ziad Sawalha
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If a client has bound to the contract XSD, they will break if we add this,
won't they?
But… I don't know how many clients would have bound to the OS-KSADM contracts.
We've been diligent and strict about not changing the core contract, but this
is the first time we've been presented with a change to an extension like this.
I'd still lean towards the "correct" practice of adding this as another
extension. Especially since that extension would only be adding a new method on
an existing resource, so would not require complex naming changes…
Open to alternative points of view..
Z
From: Jorge Williams
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:36:13 -0600
To: Dolph Mathews <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "Yee, Guang" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ziad
Sawalha <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [Openstack] Keystone: is revoke token API "officially" supported
Moving it to an extension makes sense to me. Ziad, does it make sense to add
it to OS-KSADM...or is this a different extension all together...revoke token
extension?
-jOrGe W.
On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Dolph Mathews wrote:
It is definitely not a documented call (hence the "should this be removed?"
comment in the implementation); if it were to be "promoted" from undocumented
to an extension, I imagine it would belong in OS-KSADM.
- Dolph
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Yee, Guang
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I see it implemented in the code as
DELETE /v2.0/tokens/{tokenId}
But it doesn’t appear to be documented in any of the WADLs.
Thanks!
Guang
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to :
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to :
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
