++ from me.
On 11/11/2014 05:35 PM, Adam Young wrote:
Recent recurrence of the Why ios everything on its own port question
triggered my desire to take this pattern and put it to rest.
My suggestion, from a while ago, was to have a naming scheme that
deconflicts putting all of the services onto
Adam,
I'm not sure why you've marked Swift URLs as having their own scheme. It's true
that Swift doesn't have the concept of admin URLs, but in general if Swift
were to assume some URL path prefix, I'm not sure why it wouldn't work (for
some definition of work).
Other issues might be the fact
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Adam Young wrote:
My suggestion, from a while ago, was to have a naming scheme that deconflicts
putting all of the services onto a single server, on port 443.
+1
The current state of affairs is indeed weird.
Is this something that ought to be considered in the api-wg's
Chris Dent wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Adam Young wrote:
My suggestion, from a while ago, was to have a naming scheme that deconflicts putting all of the
services onto a single server, on port 443.
+1
The current state of affairs is indeed weird.
It is, and as BUIs move more towards
For the REST API to be visible from browser it should either be on the same
domain and port or it should implement CORS spec (Cross-site HTTP requests,
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Access_control_CORS).
If REST API implements CORS, then every HTTP request will be preceded
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Chris Dent chd...@redhat.com wrote:
The current state of affairs is indeed weird.
Is this something that ought to be considered in the api-wg's
discussions?
It does and I think that is where the proposed mapping of URL-to-API should
reside. Proposed at
On 11/12/2014 06:21 AM, Darren Kenny wrote:
Chris Dent wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Adam Young wrote:
My suggestion, from a while ago, was to have a naming scheme that
deconflicts putting all of the services onto a single server, on
port 443.
+1
The current state of affairs is indeed
On 11/11/14, 16:35, Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com wrote:
Recent recurrence of the Why ios everything on its own port question
triggered my desire to take this pattern and put it to rest.
My suggestion, from a while ago, was to have a naming scheme that
deconflicts putting all of the services onto
On 12 November 2014 09:47, Ian Cordasco ian.corda...@rackspace.com wrote:
On 11/11/14, 16:35, Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com wrote:
Recent recurrence of the Why ios everything on its own port question
triggered my desire to take this pattern and put it to rest.
My suggestion, from a while
On 11/11/2014 05:47 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
On 11/11/14, 16:35, Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com wrote:
Recent recurrence of the Why ios everything on its own port question
triggered my desire to take this pattern and put it to rest.
My suggestion, from a while ago, was to have a naming scheme
On 11/11/2014 06:31 PM, Dave Walker wrote:
On 11 November 2014 22:35, Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com wrote:
Recent recurrence of the Why ios everything on its own port question
triggered my desire to take this pattern and put it to rest.
My suggestion, from a while ago, was to have a naming
11 matches
Mail list logo