On 06/25/2015 02:19 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 06/25/2015 01:35 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
Sean's point and Dmitri's are similar.
There are APIs for projects which do not have official team or program
names. And some teams may produce more than one forward-facing service.
Naming the API
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi ken1ohmi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yeah, I had the same thinking.
Based on it, we can remove generic name(compute, identity, etc) from
API microversions header.
I'm not certain we want to remove the name, but to use the type field as
the value of
2015-06-26 4:21 GMT+09:00 Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
For someone that's extremely familiar with what they are doing, they'll
understand that http://service.provider/compute is Nova, and can find
their way to Nova docs on
2015-06-20 4:40 GMT+09:00 Devananda van der Veen devananda@gmail.com:
* We have a vendor endpoint. This endpoint allows vendor to extend our
API to expose new hardware capabilities that aren't present in the
core API. Once multiple vendors starts implementing the same feature
on this
On 06/25/2015 04:42 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
2015-06-25 17:25 GMT+09:00 Lucas Alvares Gomes lucasago...@gmail.com:
Hi,
If renaming Ironic to the other, is it still necessary to keep the
name in the header?
There are some projects which are already renamed like Neutron, Zaqar
and the
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 06/25/2015 04:42 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
2015-06-25 17:25 GMT+09:00 Lucas Alvares Gomes lucasago...@gmail.com:
Hi,
If renaming Ironic to the other, is it still necessary to keep the
name in the header?
There are
On 06/25/2015 11:33 AM, Anne Gentle wrote:
Also I hadn't discovered X-OpenStack-Nova-API-Version until now -- and I
don't think that we should use project names in end-user-facing
messaging, ever. They then have to do a look up for nova among over 20
project names. [1] Since that got unmarked
Sean's point and Dmitri's are similar.
There are APIs for projects which do not have official team or program
names. And some teams may produce more than one forward-facing service.
Naming the API based in the team name doesn't make sense.
My previous point is that restricting the API name to
On 06/25/2015 12:04 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com
mailto:dtant...@redhat.com wrote:
snip
I'm not sure where the assumption comes from that people will know
compute better than nova.
I have been supporting
On 06/25/2015 05:33 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net
mailto:s...@dague.net wrote:
On 06/25/2015 04:42 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
2015-06-25 17:25 GMT+09:00 Lucas Alvares Gomes
lucasago...@gmail.com mailto:lucasago...@gmail.com:
On 06/25/2015 06:04 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com
mailto:dtant...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/25/2015 05:33 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net
mailto:s...@dague.net
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 06/25/2015 05:33 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net
mailto:s...@dague.net wrote:
On 06/25/2015 04:42 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
2015-06-25 17:25
On 06/25/2015 01:35 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
Sean's point and Dmitri's are similar.
There are APIs for projects which do not have official team or program
names. And some teams may produce more than one forward-facing service.
Naming the API based in the team name doesn't make
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
For someone that's extremely familiar with what they are doing, they'll
understand that http://service.provider/compute is Nova, and can find
their way to Nova docs on the API. But for new folks, I can only see
this adding to
Hi,
If renaming Ironic to the other, is it still necessary to keep the
name in the header?
There are some projects which are already renamed like Neutron, Zaqar
and the others.
So OpenStack-API-Version which doesn't contain project name seems
reasonable for me.
I don't think we should make
2015-06-25 17:25 GMT+09:00 Lucas Alvares Gomes lucasago...@gmail.com:
Hi,
If renaming Ironic to the other, is it still necessary to keep the
name in the header?
There are some projects which are already renamed like Neutron, Zaqar
and the others.
So OpenStack-API-Version which doesn't
In line (at the bottom)
From: Devananda van der Veen [mailto:devananda@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 12:40
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [api][nova][ironic] Microversion API HTTP header
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 7:31 AM
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 7:31 AM Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/17/2015 06:30 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
overlap there rather than competition), how crazy does it sound if we
say
that for OpenStack Nova is the compute API and Ironic the Bare Metal
API and
so on? Would that
Why does alternative implementation need to implement all 50 versions?
As far as I understand, API side should not support all versions, that is
why version info returns min and max versions
https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/doc/api_samples/versions/versions-get-resp.json#L25-L26
On
2015-06-17 19:46 GMT+08:00 Andrey Kurilin akuri...@mirantis.com:
Why does alternative implementation need to implement all 50 versions?
As far as I understand, API side should not support all versions, that is
why version info returns min and max versions
On 06/17/2015 03:35 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
2015-06-16 21:16 GMT+09:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
On 06/16/2015 08:00 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
16 июня 2015 г. 13:52 пользователь Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com
mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com написал:
On 06/16/2015 04:36 AM, Alex Xu
Hi,
I don't want to have to diverge much from the topic of this thread,
I've done this already as pointed out by Sean. But I feel like
replying to this.
Sorry I might be missing something. I don't think one thing justify
the other, plus the problem seems to be the source of truth. I thought
On 06/17/2015 06:30 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
overlap there rather than competition), how crazy does it sound if we say
that for OpenStack Nova is the compute API and Ironic the Bare Metal API and
so on? Would that be an unacceptable power grab?
It's not that it's unacceptable, but I
On 06/16/2015 08:00 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
16 июня 2015 г. 13:52 пользователь Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com
mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com написал:
On 06/16/2015 04:36 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
So if our min_version is 2.1 and the max_version is 2.50. That means
alternative implementations need
On 06/16/2015 04:12 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi wrote:
2015-06-16 2:07 GMT+09:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova [2]
and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic -- instead
of the name of the API -- i.e.
Hi
So if our min_version is 2.1 and the max_version is 2.50. That means
alternative implementations need implement all the 50 versions
api...that sounds pain...
Yes, it's pain, but it's no different than someone who is following the
Amazon EC2 API, which cuts releases at a regular
On 16 June 2015 at 14:38, Lucas Alvares Gomes lucasago...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
So if our min_version is 2.1 and the max_version is 2.50. That means
alternative implementations need implement all the 50 versions
api...that sounds pain...
Yes, it's pain, but it's no different than
16 июня 2015 г. 13:52 пользователь Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com написал:
On 06/16/2015 04:36 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
So if our min_version is 2.1 and the max_version is 2.50. That means
alternative implementations need implement all the 50 versions
api...that sounds pain...
Yes, it's pain, but
On 06/16/2015 07:38 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
2015-06-16 18:57 GMT+08:00 Sean Dague s...@dague.net
mailto:s...@dague.net:
On 06/15/2015 03:45 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 13:07 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
The original spec said that the HTTP header should
On 06/16/2015 08:38 AM, Lucas Alvares Gomes wrote:
Hi
So if our min_version is 2.1 and the max_version is 2.50. That means
alternative implementations need implement all the 50 versions
api...that sounds pain...
Yes, it's pain, but it's no different than someone who is following the
2015-06-16 21:16 GMT+09:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
On 06/16/2015 08:00 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
16 июня 2015 г. 13:52 пользователь Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com
mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com написал:
On 06/16/2015 04:36 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
So if our min_version is 2.1 and the
2015-06-16 21:14 GMT+09:00 Sean Dague s...@dague.net:
On 06/16/2015 07:38 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
2015-06-16 18:57 GMT+08:00 Sean Dague s...@dague.net
mailto:s...@dague.net:
On 06/15/2015 03:45 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 13:07 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
The
2015-06-16 6:30 GMT+09:00 Michael Davies mich...@the-davies.net:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell
kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com wrote:
Given the disagreement evinced by the responses to this thread, let me
ask a question: Would there be any particular problem with using
2015-06-16 20:52 GMT+09:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
but I have the same question with Dmitry.
If using service names in the header, how to define these name before
that?
Current big-tent situation can make duplications between projects like
X-OpenStack-Container-API-Version or
On 06/15/2015 10:31 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/15/2015 02:09 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
2015-06-15 19:50 GMT+02:00 Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com
mailto:cl...@fewbar.com:
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2015-06-15 10:07:39 -0700:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the
2015-06-16 5:24 GMT+08:00 Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com:
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2015-06-15 14:00:43 -0700:
On 06/15/2015 04:50 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:07:39PM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec
2015-06-16 2:07 GMT+09:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova [2]
and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic -- instead
of the name of the API -- i.e. OpenStack Compute and OpenStack Bare
Metal -- in the
Hi,
Actually that makes an alternative implementation more valuable. Without
microversions those alternative implementations would have to wait a long
time to implement fixes to the API, but now can implement and publish
the fix as soon as the microversion lands. This means that alternative
On 06/15/2015 03:45 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 13:07 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
The original spec said that the HTTP header should contain the name of
the service type returned by the Keystone service catalog (which is also
the official name of the REST API). I don't
2015-06-16 5:58 GMT+08:00 Ed Leafe e...@leafe.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/15/2015 04:30 PM, Michael Davies wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell
kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com
mailto:kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com wrote:
Given the
2015-06-16 18:57 GMT+08:00 Sean Dague s...@dague.net:
On 06/15/2015 03:45 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 13:07 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
The original spec said that the HTTP header should contain the name of
the service type returned by the Keystone service catalog (which
On 06/16/2015 04:36 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
So if our min_version is 2.1 and the max_version is 2.50. That means
alternative implementations need implement all the 50 versions
api...that sounds pain...
Yes, it's pain, but it's no different than someone who is following the
Amazon EC2 API, which
On 06/15/2015 01:16 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
On 06/15/2015 07:07 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova
[2] and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic --
instead of the name of the API -- i.e. OpenStack Compute and
On 15 June 2015 at 13:07, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova [2]
and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic --
instead of the name of the API -- i.e. OpenStack Compute and OpenStack
Bare Metal -- in
2015-06-15 19:50 GMT+02:00 Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com:
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2015-06-15 10:07:39 -0700:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova
[2] and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic --
instead of the name of
On Mon, 15 Jun 2015, Clint Byrum wrote:
I'm a little bit worried that we don't have a guiding principle to point
at somewhere. Perhaps the API WG can encode guidance either way (We use
project names, or we use service types).
I think it's a good idea to encode the principle, whatever it is,
On 06/15/2015 07:07 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova
[2] and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic --
instead of the name of the API -- i.e. OpenStack Compute and
OpenStack Bare Metal -- in the HTTP header that a
On 06/15/2015 01:07 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova
[2] and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic --
instead of the name of the API -- i.e. OpenStack Compute and
OpenStack Bare Metal -- in the HTTP header that
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2015-06-15 10:07:39 -0700:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova
[2] and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic --
instead of the name of the API -- i.e. OpenStack Compute and
OpenStack Bare Metal
On 06/15/2015 02:26 PM, Ruby Loo wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 13:07, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com
mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for
Nova [2] and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and
Ironic -- instead of
On 06/15/2015 03:45 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 13:07 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
The original spec said that the HTTP header should contain the name of
the service type returned by the Keystone service catalog (which is also
the official name of the REST API). I don't
On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 13:07 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
The original spec said that the HTTP header should contain the name of
the service type returned by the Keystone service catalog (which is also
the official name of the REST API). I don't understand why the spec was
changed retroactively
On 06/15/2015 02:09 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
2015-06-15 19:50 GMT+02:00 Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com
mailto:cl...@fewbar.com:
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2015-06-15 10:07:39 -0700:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova
[2] and Ironic
On 06/15/2015 04:50 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:07:39PM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova [2]
and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic -- instead
of the name of the API -- i.e.
On 06/15/2015 01:07 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova
[2] and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic
-- instead of the name of the API -- i.e. OpenStack Compute and
OpenStack Bare Metal -- in the HTTP header that
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2015-06-15 14:00:43 -0700:
On 06/15/2015 04:50 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:07:39PM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova [2]
and Ironic [3] have used the project name --
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova [2]
and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic --
instead of the name of the API -- i.e. OpenStack Compute and OpenStack
Bare
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/15/2015 04:30 PM, Michael Davies wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell
kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com
mailto:kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com wrote:
Given the disagreement evinced by the responses to this thread, let
me
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:07:39PM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for Nova [2]
and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic -- instead
of the name of the API -- i.e. OpenStack Compute and OpenStack Bare
Metal -- in the
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell
kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com wrote:
Given the disagreement evinced by the responses to this thread, let me
ask a question: Would there be any particular problem with using
X-OpenStack-API-Version?
Well, perhaps we should consider
+1 from me to remove 'X-'
-- dims
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/15/2015 05:58 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/15/2015 04:30 PM, Michael Davies wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell
On 06/15/2015 05:58 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 06/15/2015 04:30 PM, Michael Davies wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Kevin L. Mitchell
kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com
mailto:kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com wrote:
Given the disagreement evinced by
62 matches
Mail list logo
