-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
To echo what Aaron says, in any distributed system, it is almost always a
mistake not to design for bulk api calls. Even if you don't think they are
needed for the initial use cases, they will almost always be needed at some
point later. It is trivial
...
To echo what Aaron says, in any distributed system, it is almost always a
mistake not to design for bulk api calls. Even if you don't think they are
needed for the initial use cases, they will almost always be needed at some
point later. It is trivial to use a bulk call with a single
[resending with correct From address]
On 15 July 2014 21:07, Aaron Bentley aaron.bent...@canonical.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-07-15 11:43 AM, Richard Harding wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Aaron Bentley wrote:
On 14-07-15 10:17 AM, roger peppe wrote:
The
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Richard Harding
rick.hard...@canonical.com wrote:
It is listed under known clients in the spec, and we mentioned your request
down below. What we lack is your specific use cases as no one working on
the spec is knowledgeable about how you're using the api.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Richard Harding
rick.hard...@canonical.com wrote:
I'm not against having any bulk api calls but we've got a handful of
clients and the one use case we've found for them is Aaron's work which I
think we can better address with our current scheme anyway as he
Based on feedback from Rick Harding, amongst others,
we have made some changes to the proposed charm
store API. The new document is here:
https://docs.google.com/a/canonical.com/document/d/1TgRA7jW_mmXoKH3JiwBbtPvQu7WiM6XMrz1wSrhTMXw
The most significant change is that all endpoints
refer just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-07-15 10:17 AM, roger peppe wrote:
The most significant change is that all endpoints refer just to a
single charm or bundle, rather than being bulk calls as they were
before.
That sounds like the opposite of what juju-reports wants. Does it
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Aaron Bentley wrote:
On 14-07-15 10:17 AM, roger peppe wrote:
The most significant change is that all endpoints refer just to a
single charm or bundle, rather than being bulk calls as they were
before.
That sounds like the opposite of what juju-reports wants. Does
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Aaron Bentley wrote:
I am surprised that juju-reports was not considered a known client. I
certainly made many comments on the first draft of the original proposal.
It is listed under known clients in the spec, and we mentioned your request
down below. What we lack is
