On 04/10/2018 01:04 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote:
These are good problem statements. I didn't understand all of the aspects of it, so I put some inline questions.

My overall question is: are these related problems? To share my answer to this, I believe the first two problems are related and the third is separate. The classic divide and conquor approach we could use here is to confirm that the problems are unrelated and focus on resolving one of them first.


On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Austin Macdonald <aus...@redhat.com <mailto:aus...@redhat.com>> wrote:


    Austin, Dennis, and Milan have identified the following issues
    with current Pulp3 REST API design:

      * Action endpoints are problematic.
          o Example POST@/importers/<plugin>/sync/
          o They are non-RESTful and would make client code tightly
            coupled with the server code.
          o These endpoints are inconsistent with the other parts of
            the REST API.

Is self-consistency really a goal? I think it's a placeholder for consistency for REST since the "rest" of the API is RESTful. After reading parts of Roy Fielding's writeup of the definition of REST I believe "action endpoints are not RESTful" to be a true statement. Maybe "Action endpoints are problematic" should be replaced with "Action endpoints are not RESTful" perhaps and have the self-consistency bullet removed?

Consistency in an API is always a valuable goal.

          o DRF is not being used as intended for action endpoints so
            we have to implement extra code. (against the grain)

I don't know much about this. Where is the extra code?

      * We don't have a convention for where plug-in-specific, custom
        repository version creation endpoints.
          o example POST@/api/v3/<where?>/docker/add/
          o needs to be discoverable through the schema

What does discoverable via the schema ^ mean? Aren't all urls listed in the schema?

I think of ^ problem somewhat differently. Yes all urls need to be discoverable (a REST property), but isn't it more of an issue that the urls which produce repo versions can't be identified distinctly from any other plugin-contributed url? To paraphrase this perspective: making a repo version is strewn about throughout the API in random places which is a bad user experience. Is that what is motivation url discovery?

Let me suggest another wording to "discovery".  The entire API needs to be clearly & completely defined in the schema.

      * For direct repository version creation, plugins are not involved.
          o validation correctness problem:
          o example: POST@/api/v3/repositories/<repository_id>/versions/

I agree with this problem statement. In terms of scope it affects some plugin writers but not all.

    We would like to get feedback on these issues being sound and
    worth resolving before we resume particular solution discussion[1].

    Austin, Dennis, and Milan


    Pulp-dev mailing list
    Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>

Pulp-dev mailing list

Pulp-dev mailing list

Reply via email to