Sure, I'm looking for the rationale behind the two classes. That'll help to determine how much of compatibility (if any) is broken because most of them are similar. Also there are specific response types for the LoadBalancer (ApplicationLoadBalancerResponse), GlobalLoadBalancerResponse which are returned by the create APIs for the corresponding resources. So I'm guessing there's a good reason to have the delete operation return a different response.
The FirewallRuleRespones seems to be the generic response returned by the following APIs: deleteLoadBalancer deleteLoadBalancerRule deletePortForwardingRule listIpForwardingRules listPortForwardingRules removeFromLoadBalancerRule updatePortForwardingRule -- Prasanna., On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 09:34:21AM +0000, Nitin Mehta wrote: > But, this will break backward compatibility no ? > Maybe change it in the next big release. > > On 28/05/13 2:50 PM, "Prasanna Santhanam" <prasanna.santha...@citrix.com> > wrote: > > >When I createFirewallRule I recieve a FirewallResponse but when I > >deleteFirewallRule I am expected to pass in an id I recieved as a > >FirewallRuleResponse? > > > >What are these two response types? They look very similar. Is this > >legacy? Can we clean it up and standardize to a single > >FirewallRuleResponse? > > > >Thanks, > > > >-- > >Prasanna., ------------------------ Powered by BigRock.com
