2015-03-24 23:20 GMT+09:00 Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 01:04:46PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-03-23 21:31:30 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:35:50PM +,
On 2015-03-23 21:31:30 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:35:50PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-03-23 15:15:18 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
I don't want it suppressed. I want the use of API extensions and the
extension framework(s) to be
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 01:04:46PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-03-23 21:31:30 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:35:50PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-03-23 15:15:18 -0400
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 01:04:46PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-03-23 21:31:30 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:35:50PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-03-23 15:15:18 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
I don't want it suppressed. I want the
Jeremy Stanley on March 24, 2015 07:28 wrote:
On 2015-03-24 10:10:07 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
I'm really not a fan of the Defcore effort. This should come as no
surprise to anyone. I've been quite blunt about my disdain for the
focus on identifying which API things are mandatory
On 2015-03-24 10:10:07 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
I'm really not a fan of the Defcore effort. This should come as no
surprise to anyone. I've been quite blunt about my disdain for the
focus on identifying which API things are mandatory and which are
optional, in order to say some
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 09:52:14PM +1030, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:14:21 -0400
Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 03/09/2015 03:37 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 03/08/2015 08:10 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
On 2015-03-23 15:15:18 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
I don't want it suppressed. I want the use of API extensions and the
extension framework(s) to be completely dropped for all future
API-affecting work.
[...]
Perhaps controversial, but would it be worthwhile to propose to the
Defcore
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 09:52:14PM +1030, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:14:21 -0400
Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 03/09/2015 03:37 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 03/08/2015 08:10 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and
Sorry for the delay in responding all. Comments inline.
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:04:59PM -0700, melanie witt wrote:
On Mar 9, 2015, at 13:14, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
So possibly another way to think about this is our prior signaling of
what was supported by Nova was signaled by
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2015-03-23 15:15:18 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
I don't want it suppressed. I want the use of API extensions and the
extension framework(s) to be completely dropped for all future
API-affecting work.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:35:50PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-03-23 15:15:18 -0400 (-0400), Jay Pipes wrote:
[...]
I don't want it suppressed. I want the use of API extensions and the
extension framework(s) to be completely dropped for all future
API-affecting work.
[...]
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:14:21 -0400
Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 03/09/2015 03:37 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 03/08/2015 08:10 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and
document it, that will be great for guiding developer how to add
new API.
On 03/09/2015 06:04 PM, melanie witt wrote:
On Mar 9, 2015, at 13:14, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
So possibly another way to think about this is our prior signaling of
what was supported by Nova was signaled by the extension list. Our code
was refactored into a way that supported
I have done the first version, follow this discussion I separated them into
two patches:
1. The discussion about eliminated extension:
https://review.openstack.org/162912
2. The discussion about modularity:
https://review.openstack.org/162913
After begin the writefound I loss some
2015-03-10 3:37 GMT+08:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
On 03/08/2015 08:10 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and document
it, that will be great for guiding developer how to add new API.
I know we didn't want extension for API. But I think we
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:08 PM, John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com wrote:
Hi,
I think I agree with Jay here, but let me explain...
On 8 March 2015 at 12:10, Alex Xu sou...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and document
it,
that will be great
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:08 PM, John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com wrote:
+1
Please could you submit a dev ref for this?
We can argue on the review, a bit like this one:
https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/doc/source/devref/policy_enforcement.rst
I think it'd also be a good
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 03/07/2015 07:31 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Hi Stackers,
Now that microversions have been introduced to the Nova API (meaning we
can now have novaclient request, say, version 2.3 of the Nova API using
the special
Hi,
Apologies for the slow reply, long weekend because of a public holiday over
here. I'm probably going to end up repeating part of what
Alex has mentioned as well.
So the first thing I think we want to distinguish between plugins being a
REST API user or operator concept and it being
a tool
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 1:04:15 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Microversions. And why do we need
API
Hi,
I think I agree with Jay here, but let me explain...
On 8 March 2015 at 12:10, Alex Xu sou...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and document it,
that will be great for guiding developer how to add new API.
+1
Please could you submit a dev ref
On 03/07/2015 07:31 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Hi Stackers,
Now that microversions have been introduced to the Nova API (meaning we
can now have novaclient request, say, version 2.3 of the Nova API using
the special X-OpenStack-Nova-API-Version HTTP header), is there any good
reason to require
ok, no problem, will take a look it tomorrow.
2015-03-09 20:18 GMT+08:00 Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:08 PM, John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com
wrote:
+1
Please could you submit a dev ref for this?
We can argue on the review, a bit like this one:
On Mar 9, 2015, at 13:14, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
So possibly another way to think about this is our prior signaling of
what was supported by Nova was signaled by the extension list. Our code
was refactored into a way that supported optional loading by that unit.
As we're making
On 03/08/2015 08:10 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and document
it, that will be great for guiding developer how to add new API.
I know we didn't want extension for API. But I think we still
need modularity. I don't think we should put everything
On 03/09/2015 07:32 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
snip
So the first thing I think we want to distinguish between plugins
being a REST API user or operator concept and it being a tool
developers use as a framework to support the Nova REST API. As I've
mentioned before I've no problem with the
On 03/09/2015 03:37 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 03/08/2015 08:10 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and document
it, that will be great for guiding developer how to add new API.
I know we didn't want extension for API. But I think we still
need
2015-03-09 20:36 GMT+09:00 Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 03/07/2015 07:31 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Hi Stackers,
Now that microversions have been introduced to the Nova API (meaning we
can now have novaclient
Hi,
2015-03-09 20:38 GMT+09:00 John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com:
On 8 March 2015 at 12:10, Alex Xu sou...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and document it,
that will be great for guiding developer how to add new API.
+1
Please could you submit a
...@mirantis.com
Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2015 1:31:34 AM
Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Microversions. And why do we need API
extensions for new API functionality?
Hi Stackers,
Now that microversions have been introduced to the Nova API (meaning we
can now have novaclient request, say
Thanks for Jay point this out! If we have agreement on this and document
it, that will be great for guiding developer how to add new API.
I know we didn't want extension for API. But I think we still
need modularity. I don't think we should put everything in a single file,
that file will become
Hi Stackers,
Now that microversions have been introduced to the Nova API (meaning we
can now have novaclient request, say, version 2.3 of the Nova API using
the special X-OpenStack-Nova-API-Version HTTP header), is there any good
reason to require API extensions at all for *new*
33 matches
Mail list logo
