to
be linearly versioned independently from the core functionality itself.
Thank you,
Sam Harwell
-Original Message-
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 8:46 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone] V3 Extensions
On 08/06/2013 01:19 AM, Jamie Lennox wrote:
Hi all,
Partially in response to the trusts API review in keystoneclient
(https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39899/ ) and my work on keystone API
version discoverability (spell-check disagrees but I'm going to assume
that's a word -
as a general principle I would think it is a good idea for clients to be
able to interrogate Keystone to determine what extensions it supports.
Most protocols have some mechanism for determining what
extensions/versions are supported by the server, and what optional
features are implemented.
On Aug 6, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Adam Young wrote:
On 08/06/2013 01:19 AM, Jamie Lennox wrote:
Hi all,
Partially in response to the trusts API review in keystoneclient
(https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39899/ ) and my work on keystone API
version discoverability (spell-check disagrees but I'm
On 06/08/2013 14:46, Jay Pipes wrote:
API extensions are more hassle than anything else. Let us promote
standards, not endless extensibility at the expense of usability.
This is the crux of the issue. Everyone who participates in
standardisation meetings has their own agenda to follow:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Jorge Williams jorge.willi...@rackspace.com
wrote:
On Aug 6, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Adam Young wrote:
On 08/06/2013 01:19 AM, Jamie Lennox wrote:
Hi all,
Partially in response to the trusts API review in keystoneclient
On 08/06/2013 10:54 AM, Dolph Mathews wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Jorge Williams
jorge.willi...@rackspace.com mailto:jorge.willi...@rackspace.com
wrote:
On Aug 6, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Adam Young wrote:
On 08/06/2013 01:19 AM, Jamie Lennox wrote:
Hi all,
On 08/06/2013 10:45 AM, David Chadwick wrote:
On 06/08/2013 14:46, Jay Pipes wrote:
API extensions are more hassle than anything else. Let us promote
standards, not endless extensibility at the expense of usability.
This is the crux of the issue. Everyone who participates in
standardisation
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/06/2013 10:45 AM, David Chadwick wrote:
On 06/08/2013 14:46, Jay Pipes wrote:
API extensions are more hassle than anything else. Let us promote
standards, not endless extensibility at the expense of usability.
On 06/08/2013 16:53, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 08/06/2013 10:45 AM, David Chadwick wrote:
On 06/08/2013 14:46, Jay Pipes wrote:
API extensions are more hassle than anything else. Let us promote
standards, not endless extensibility at the expense of usability.
This is the crux of the issue.
On 06/08/2013 18:11, Jay Pipes wrote:
What SMTP, DNS and LDAP extensions are in use by systems that need to
interoperate in the same way that Keystone does? -- This is a genuine
question, not sarcasm. I'm truly curious.
Take SMTP for example. My Thunderbird client needs to know what
On 08/06/2013 01:21 PM, David Chadwick wrote:
On 06/08/2013 18:11, Jay Pipes wrote:
What SMTP, DNS and LDAP extensions are in use by systems that need to
interoperate in the same way that Keystone does? -- This is a genuine
question, not sarcasm. I'm truly curious.
Take SMTP for example. My
On 06/08/2013 20:40, Clint Byrum wrote:
Agreed Jay. The successful extensible protocols like IMAP and SMTP are
merely allowing new arguments to existing fundamental functions.
But the key thing with these protocols is that they have a defined and
standardised way of adding new extensions -
On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 11:17 -0400, Adam Young wrote:
On 08/06/2013 10:54 AM, Dolph Mathews wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Jorge Williams
jorge.willi...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Aug 6, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Adam Young wrote:
On 08/06/2013
14 matches
Mail list logo
