2015-03-24 23:20 GMT+09:00 Joe Gordon :
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Jay Pipes 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:
>> > > >
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 mandator
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 7:10 AM, Jay Pipes 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 (-0400), Jay Pi
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
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 5:45 AM, Jay Pipes 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 wrote:
> >
> > > On 03/09/2015 03:37 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > > > On 03/08/2015 08:10 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
> > > >> Thanks for
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, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:35 PM, 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.
> [...]
>
> P
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
Defco
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 09:52:14PM +1030, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:14:21 -0400
> Sean Dague 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
> > >> docu
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 wrote:
> > So possibly another way to think about this is our prior signaling of
> > what was supported by Nova was signaled by the extensio
On 03/09/2015 06:04 PM, melanie witt wrote:
On Mar 9, 2015, at 13:14, Sean Dague 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 t
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:14:21 -0400
Sean Dague 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.
> >>
2015-03-10 3:37 GMT+08:00 Jay Pipes :
> 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
>> ne
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 confidence
2015-03-09 20:36 GMT+09:00 Christopher Yeoh :
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Sean Dague 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, versio
Hi,
2015-03-09 20:38 GMT+09:00 John Garbutt :
> On 8 March 2015 at 12:10, 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.
>
> +1
>
> Please could you submit a dev ref for this?
>
> We ca
On Mar 9, 2015, at 13:14, Sean Dague 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 things less
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
>> ne
On 03/09/2015 07:32 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
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 feature se
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 i
ok, no problem, will take a look it tomorrow.
2015-03-09 20:18 GMT+08:00 Christopher Yeoh :
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:08 PM, John Garbutt
> 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/opens
- Original Message -
> From: "Christopher Yeoh"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 1:04:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] Microversions. And why do we need
> AP
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:08 PM, John Garbutt 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 idea to add a t
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:08 PM, John Garbutt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think I agree with Jay here, but let me explain...
>
> On 8 March 2015 at 12:10, 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
Hi,
I think I agree with Jay here, but let me explain...
On 8 March 2015 at 12:10, 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.
+1
Please could you submit a dev ref for this?
We can
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Sean Dague 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 X-OpenStack-Nov
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 de
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 requi
t: 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 novaclie
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 hu
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* functionality.
33 matches
Mail list logo
