Hi all, My initial intention was to get rid of the strange Map<Map<String, Object>>, because most people found it counter intuitive and unnecessary (at least nobody knows why yet). But I cannot proceed with the change that I proposed any more because I cannot assume that all the maps come in the same format. I cannot make any change that makes CS non backward compatible.
Assuming that all the parameters arrived with this format: mymap[0].key=country mymap[0].value=Netherlands we could have done it. But since we have others formats depending on the Command mymap[0].country=Netherlands my change would brake it. @Jayapal, don't worry about my change. Given that we don't have a unique convention I guess nothing stops you from doing it that way. I also prefer that way. But most of the cases are the other way if I'm not wrong (the first example). And I will not send any change that brakes that, of course. Still, it would be needed to get rid of the duplications (copy and paste) of code that transforms that Map of Maps into a regular Map. Just have it in a single place and invoke it from any Command that needs it. You all agree? @Marcus. You are right, how we send the params in the request and how we keep them in memory are two separate things. But still, parsing them in a single place that is reused elsewhere is not so beneficial if we don't have a single convention. Actually there is a big coupling there (and will still be), because although there is a single place with the knowledge of how the params come (method unpackParams), the bizarre structure is spread and has to be fixed into a normal Map in their getters. All these methods struggle with the fact that the "key" and "value" are still there in memory. So all that code is impregnated with this parsing specific details. Apart from all of that, and keeping the several formats as they are, I still want to parse the maps with Regular Expressions, instead of manually parsing the characters "[", "." and so on... The current code is more error prone and less readable than using Regex. You all agree? Thank you all. Cheers Antonio 2014-03-10 20:01 GMT+01:00 Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>: > Just as an FYI: I recently added support to pass in a Min and Max IOPS for > the root disk of a VM to create. I first investigated how this was being > done with the custom root disk and then copied that approach. That being > the case, I leveraged the map instead of making new parameters. I do agree > we should define more clearly when one approach should be taken over the > other. > > Thanks! > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I suppose its also worth pointing out that the api params and how we >> pass them around internally are two separate things. It's easy to just >> add a new custom api parameter and then put it into the details map >> (or an object) to be passed around, and it provides a much better user >> experience from the API consumer's perspective as the parameters are >> documented as normal and the user doesn't have to deal with parameters >> inside parameters. Most of the other parameter maps seem to have >> related info, such as serviceproviderlist, networksids, or the >> resource tags map. The new details map for deployVirtualMachine just >> seems like a place to put random parameters so that we don't have to >> keep adding them explicitly, especially given that they're not all >> persisted in the user_vm_details table. It might be nice to consider >> more targeted maps such as 'serviceofferingdetails' which would >> contain related parameters that could override service offerings such >> as cpu, memory, and a separate map for 'diskofferingdetails' that >> could override iops and other disk attributes, to be reused on >> createVolume API. rootdisksize doesn't fit, as there's currently no >> root size on service offering, but we could in the future add a 'min >> root size' attribute into the service offering that would override the >> template size if it were larger than the selected template. >> >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Yes, we'd have to leave the current one intact, but allow the other as >> well. >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Bharat Kumar <bharat.ku...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> i don't know if this is still valid, but there was one more parameter >> disksize which which specifies the disk size for data disks. >> >> I would prefer adding both the root disk size and disk size to the >> details map. ideally we should also change the name disksize to >> >> dataDisksize to remove confusion but this might break backward >> compatibility. >> >> >> >> Adding them to a map will be intuitive as we already use a map to >> specify any custom parameters related to VM. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Bharat. >> >> >> >> On 10-Mar-2014, at 10:57 pm, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> It is valid, as I've implemented it. So we need to decide if we're >> >>> using 'details' or rootdisksize as an api param. That's why I'm >> >>> asking. >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Bharat Kumar < >> bharat.ku...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>>> Hi All, >> >>>> the roodiskresize is no longer valid. as there is no code which is >> using rootdiskresize currently. >> >>>> >> >>>> As a part of the custom service offering we had to enable specifying >> custom values to parameters cpu, memory and cpuCores. >> >>>> instead of adding a parameter for each of these values we changed it >> use a details map. This will also not require any further >> >>>> changes in the API if we need to add some more custom values in >> future. >> >>>> >> >>>> On 08-Mar-2014, at 1:42 am, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Any suggestion? Do we go forward assuming that the correct parameter >> >>>>> for resize on deploy is: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> deployVirtualMachine&details[0].rootdisksize=3 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> or do we change it to >> >>>>> >> >>>>> deployVirtualMachine&rootdisksize=3 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> Ok, sounds like there needs to be some work done to make these more >> >>>>>> consistent, perhaps. Can you comment on why rootdisksize was made >> from >> >>>>>> a parameter into a part of the details map? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Bharat Kumar < >> bharat.ku...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Hi ALL, >> >>>>>>> There are many other APIs that use Map like createNetworkOffering, >> >>>>>>> updateZone, createTemplate, in most of the cases we do not >> >>>>>>> say how to use maps, one way would be to write this in the >> description or to >> >>>>>>> use the same way to access maps of all APIs. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> BTW the way to use details in deploy vm API is >> >>>>>>> details[0].foo=bar&details[1].baz=12 where foo and baz are keys. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Also if we want to use the regix protected static final String >> >>>>>>> MAP_KEY_PATTERN_EXPRESSION = "^([^\\[^\\]]+)\\[(\\d+)\\]\\.key$"; >> >>>>>>> protected static >> final >> >>>>>>> String MAP_VALUE_PATTERN_EXPRESSION = >> "^[^\\[^\\]]+\\[\\d+\\]\\.value$"; >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> wil this work in the following case. I believe service is the key >> here which >> >>>>>>> repeats. >> >>>>>>> >> http://10.147.59.119:8080/client/api?command=createNetworkOffering&response=json&sessionkey=/kGFJDXFmMQU8JZnnC7QFfj3tV8=&name=bharat&displayText=bharat&guestIpType=Isolated&lbType=publicLb&; >> >>>>>>> >> servicecapabilitylist[0].service=SourceNat&servicecapabilitylist[0].capabilitytype=SupportedSourceNatTypes& >> >>>>>>> servicecapabilitylist[0].capabilityvalue=peraccount& >> >>>>>>> >> servicecapabilitylist[1].service=lb&servicecapabilitylist[1].capabilitytype=SupportedLbIsolation& >> >>>>>>> >> servicecapabilitylist[1].capabilityvalue=dedicated&availability=Optional&egresspolicy=ALLOW&state=Creating&status=Creating&allocationstate=Creating&supportedServices=Vpn,Dhcp,Dns,Firewall,Lb,UserData,SourceNat,StaticNat,PortForwarding&specifyIpRanges=false&specifyVlan=false&isPersistent=false&conservemode=false&serviceProviderList[0].service=Vpn&serviceProviderList[0].provider=VirtualRouter&serviceProviderList[1].service=Dhcp&serviceProviderList[1].provider=VirtualRouter&serviceProviderList[2].service=Dns&serviceProviderList[2].provider=VirtualRouter&serviceProviderList[3].service=Firewall&serviceProviderList[3].provider=VirtualRouter&serviceProviderList[4].service=Lb&serviceProviderList[4].provider=VirtualRouter&serviceProviderList[5].service=UserData&serviceProviderList[5].provider=VirtualRouter&serviceProviderList[6].service=SourceNat&serviceProviderList[6].provider=JuniperSRX&serviceProviderList[7].service=StaticNat&serviceProviderList[7].provider=JuniperSRX&serviceProviderList[8].service=PortForwarding&serviceProviderList[8].provider=JuniperSRX&egressdefaultpolicy=true&traffictype=GUEST&_=1393925230248 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 04-Mar-2014, at 2:30 am, Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Along these lines, the details parameter in deployVirtualMachine >> seems >> >>>>>>> broken. If I call "details[0].key=foo,details[0].value=bar", it >> stores >> >>>>>>> entries in the database like this: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> id | vmid | name | value | display >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 12 | 25 | value | bar | 1 >> >>>>>>> 13 | 25 | key | foo | 1 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> It seems as though this might be correct per Alena's email, but I >> >>>>>>> don't understand how this can be reconstructed into foo=bar when >> >>>>>>> there's no binding between the two rows. Perhaps details are >> supposed >> >>>>>>> to be passed differently than the resource tags, because if I do >> >>>>>>> "details[0].foo=bar&details[1].baz=12", I get: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> id | vmid | name | value | display >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 12 | 25 | foo | bar | 1 >> >>>>>>> 13 | 25 | baz | 12 | 1 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> And indeed there is code utilizing these details already committed >> >>>>>>> that expects this format, as deployVirtualMachines getDetails() >> only >> >>>>>>> seems to pass a correct Map<String, String> with Key, Value if I >> use >> >>>>>>> this format. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Antonio Fornié Casarrubios >> >>>>>>> <antonio.for...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Alena, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Of course, the API will not have any changes. This is not a >> functional >> >>>>>>> change, just some refactoring. The problem is there are many >> things in CS >> >>>>>>> that really need some refactoring otherwise the problem will >> continue >> >>>>>>> growing more and more, but doing the change and above all making >> sure it >> >>>>>>> all works afterwards is not simple. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I will make sure that everything works exactly the same way and >> that the >> >>>>>>> data returned is also the same. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks. Cheers >> >>>>>>> Antonio >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 2014-03-03 18:48 GMT+01:00 Alena Prokharchyk < >> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Antonio, sure I will review the patch. But please make sure that >> API >> >>>>>>> backwards compatibly is intact, otherwise the fix won¹t be >> accepted. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -Alena. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 3/2/14, 4:31 PM, "Antonio Fornié Casarrubios" >> >>>>>>> <antonio.for...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Alena, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The reasons for this strange format? I don't know. There doesn't >> seem to >> >>>>>>> be >> >>>>>>> one. After asking on my team and in the dev list I thought >> perhaps you >> >>>>>>> could know. It seems we all see it strange and nobody knows why. >> But of >> >>>>>>> course, if it is for reasons I will stop the change. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> And about the DB, you are right, in the DB is not like I said. >> But you can >> >>>>>>> have this in a table row field: >> >>>>>>> {0={value=Toronto,key=City}} >> >>>>>>> for some tables. I think there are two cases: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 1- params in wich the get method fixes the params on the fly. In >> these of >> >>>>>>> course the strange format is not propagated anymore. But this is >> still >> >>>>>>> wrong: the format itself before the get is invoked, the time >> spent on >> >>>>>>> fixing something that should be a normal Map from the begining >> (each time >> >>>>>>> the get method is invoked) and mainly the fact that these get >> methods that >> >>>>>>> fix the map on the fly are copies of each other: instead of >> fixing the >> >>>>>>> structure in one method, the are plenty of methods almost >> identical >> >>>>>>> copying >> >>>>>>> and pasting the same lines. Some times the same method twice in >> the same >> >>>>>>> cmd class for two Map params (look CreateNetworkOfferingCmd >> >>>>>>> #getServiceCapabilities and #getServiceProviders). >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 2- params in which the get method returns the map as it is. With >> the >> >>>>>>> strange format. For example, >> >>>>>>> Cloudmonkey command >> >>>>>>> create networkoffering ... tags[0].key="City" >> tags[0].value="Toronto" >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> You store in the table network_offeringstags, field tags, the >> String: >> >>>>>>> {0={value=Toronto,key=City}} >> >>>>>>> (including brackets and all) >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> So knowing all this I guess you agree this should be >> refactored... unless >> >>>>>>> at some point the strange format is needed. But after looking for >> it >> >>>>>>> everywhere I didn't find any place where it was. I already did >> the change >> >>>>>>> and tested most of the cases and it all seems to work. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> It would be great if once I upload the patch somebody could help >> me double >> >>>>>>> check that it doesn't brake anything, not only reviewing to code. >> I did >> >>>>>>> plenty of tests of many kinds, but I cannot be sure that I am >> covering >> >>>>>>> enough. Further, there seem to be several places where the code >> expects >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>> strange format. >> >>>>>>> ->ConfigurationManagerImpl line 1545 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks. Cheers >> >>>>>>> Antonio >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 2014-02-28 18:44 GMT+01:00 Alena Prokharchyk >> >>>>>>> <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> From: Antonio Fornié Casarrubios <antonio.for...@gmail.com> >> >>>>>>> Date: Friday, February 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM >> >>>>>>> To: Rohit Yadav <rohityada...@gmail.com>, cloudstack < >> >>>>>>> dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, Alena Prokharchyk < >> >>>>>>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> >> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][QUESTION] Map parameters in API Commands >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Alena, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I would like to know your opinion on this change. Mainly consists >> on: >> >>>>>>> 1- Change the way we store the Map params after unpackParams in >> order to >> >>>>>>> have, for each Map param, a Map<String, String> instead of >> Map<String, >> >>>>>>> Map<String, Object>>. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -Antonio, what was the reason for storing the parameter in the old >> >>>>>>> format to begin with? Where there any case where we actually >> needed a >> >>>>>>> map >> >>>>>>> of map parameters? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 2- There are many commands that fix this strange format on demand >> on >> >>>>>>> their getters, so they do the conversion there. Since I already >> have the >> >>>>>>> final format I replace these getters with just >> >>>>>>> getTags(){ return this.tags;} >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 3- Persistence of these Map params. This last change is more >> tricky and >> >>>>>>> error-prone but the previous two would brake the functionality >> without >> >>>>>>> it. >> >>>>>>> Actually it doesn't seem that I should change this for all the >> cases, >> >>>>>>> given >> >>>>>>> that for some commands the current behavior is storing in the DB >> the >> >>>>>>> Map as >> >>>>>>> it comes, so after the change it will just do the same and thus >> >>>>>>> retrieve it >> >>>>>>> with the right format. So, although in the tables we move from >> >>>>>>> ------ >> >>>>>>> key | City >> >>>>>>> ------ >> >>>>>>> value | The Hague >> >>>>>>> ------ >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>> ------ >> >>>>>>> City | The Hague >> >>>>>>> ------ >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> then in memory, after DB read, we will just have the proper format >> >>>>>>> again >> >>>>>>> (Map<String, String>). Is that right? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> - in what table do you see key name being a field name? I've >> looked >> >>>>>>> at >> >>>>>>> various *_details tables, as well as resource_tag table, >> everywhere >> >>>>>>> we have >> >>>>>>> key/value fields where we store key and the value respectfully: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> mysql> desc user_Vm_details; >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> +---------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ >> >>>>>>> | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> +---------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ >> >>>>>>> | id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | >> auto_increment >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> | vm_id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> | name | varchar(255) | NO | | NULL | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> | value | varchar(1024) | NO | | NULL | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> | display | tinyint(1) | NO | | 1 | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> +---------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ >> >>>>>>> 5 rows in set (0.01 sec) >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> mysql> desc resource_tags; >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> +---------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------- >> >>>>>>> -----+ >> >>>>>>> | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | >> Extra >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> +---------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------- >> >>>>>>> -----+ >> >>>>>>> | id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | >> >>>>>>> auto_increment | >> >>>>>>> | uuid | varchar(40) | YES | UNI | NULL | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> | key | varchar(255) | YES | | NULL | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> | value | varchar(255) | YES | | NULL | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> | resource_id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> | resource_uuid | varchar(40) | YES | | NULL | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> | resource_type | varchar(255) | YES | | NULL | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> | customer | varchar(255) | YES | | NULL | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> | domain_id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> | account_id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | >> >>>>>>> | >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> +---------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------- >> >>>>>>> -----+ >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 4- The last change should be related to any code expecting the old >> >>>>>>> format, that will fail with the new one. I guess UI will be an >> example >> >>>>>>> of >> >>>>>>> that, but I didn't check yet. If the JS code receives the new Map >> >>>>>>> serialized, then chances are this will break it, right? Can you >> tell >> >>>>>>> your >> >>>>>>> thoughts on this? Can you tell me places I should check first to >> confirm >> >>>>>>> this guess? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> - Its not just about the uI> You should never break the API >> backwards >> >>>>>>> compatibility. Remember that lots of third party vendors use our >> APIs, >> >>>>>>> not >> >>>>>>> the UI. As long as we support the old format, introducing the new >> one >> >>>>>>> shouldn't be a problem. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Considering it all, do you think this change is worth it? For me >> this >> >>>>>>> seems to be something that was wrong from the beginning and it >> should >> >>>>>>> have >> >>>>>>> been changed before the mess got spread. But know, although I >> want to >> >>>>>>> fix >> >>>>>>> it, I'm afraid this involves touching too many things in order to >> fix >> >>>>>>> something that looks horrible but seems to be actually working >> and I >> >>>>>>> don't >> >>>>>>> want to break. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks. Cheers >> >>>>>>> Antonio >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 2014-02-12 23:32 GMT+01:00 Rohit Yadav <rohityada...@gmail.com>: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Antonio Fornié Casarrubios >> >>>>>>> <antonio.for...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Rohit, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I didn't mean changing the format of the HTTP request, but only >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> changing the >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> intermediate format in which we keep it in the property of the >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Command >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> class. I mentioned the format in the request just to explain what >> I >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> meant. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> My proposal is to leave the request format as it is, but then when >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> method "apiDispatcher#setFieldValue" parses the map and assign it >> to >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> property, do it in a normal way: which is a Map<String, String> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> instead >> >>>>>>> of a >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Map<String, Map<String, Object>> as it is now. And then, our >> getter >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> methods >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> (like CreateTagsCommand#GetTag) will be just a normal getter that >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> doesn't >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> need to transform the structure on the fly. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Cool, let's request the present API layer maintainer(s) and other >> >>>>>>> folks in the community to comment. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Regards. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks, cheers >> >>>>>>> antonio >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 2014-02-11 17:38 GMT+01:00 Rohit Yadav <rohityada...@gmail.com>: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Antonio, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Antonio Fornié Casarrubios >> >>>>>>> <antonio.for...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi all, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> When invoking a CS API command that has parameters of type Map, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> request >> >>>>>>> will be something like this: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> URL/api?command=createTags&tags[0].key=region&tags[0].value=canada&tags[ >> >>>>>>> 1].key=name&tags[1].value=bob >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> in order to send a Map with the pairs: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> tags{ >> >>>>>>> region : "canada", >> >>>>>>> name : "bob" >> >>>>>>> } >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Then in the server side the parameters go through several stages >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> (IMHO >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> too >> >>>>>>> many), and have different formats. At some point >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> apiDispatcher#setFieldValue >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> will assign the value to the command property (CreateTagsCmd#tag >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> in >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> example) in a VERY strange way: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> CreateTagsCmd#tag = { >> >>>>>>> 0 : { >> >>>>>>> "key" : "region", >> >>>>>>> "value" : "canada" >> >>>>>>> }, >> >>>>>>> 1 : { >> >>>>>>> "key" : "name", >> >>>>>>> "value" : "bob" >> >>>>>>> } >> >>>>>>> } >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> This is true for several Cmd classes. And the funny thing is they >> >>>>>>> usually >> >>>>>>> provide a public getter method to get the Map in an already >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> "normalized" >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> structure. The problem is we have this method again a again in >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> each >> >>>>>>> of >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> these commands, only with different name depending on what >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> property >> >>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> get, and the body is almost copy and pasted. so my next >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> refactoring >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> would >> >>>>>>> be to have a generic method only once in BaseCmd so that all >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> subclasses >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> can >> >>>>>>> reuse it for their Map getters. Pretty obvious, but... >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> This is a well know issue and is such a pain, both for the users >> of >> >>>>>>> the API to create this API and the programmer who have to put hack >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> at >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> the backend to extract the map. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Is it really necessary to have this strange format? Wouldn't it be >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> much >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> better to just store it in a more normal way from the beginning, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> have >> >>>>>>> the getters just standard getters? Does it have any use to have >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> those >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Maps >> >>>>>>> of Maps? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Changing the API will break many client so no one attempted it for >> >>>>>>> keeping backward-compatibility I think. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The HTTP RFC states that if same keys are sent in param they must >> be >> >>>>>>> received as an array. For example, /api?q=1&q=2&q=3 should >> received >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> q >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> = [1,2,3] which is what we're not doing. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> We should do that and this way we can capture maps using keys and >> >>>>>>> values in order, so for example, >> >>>>>>> /api?q.key1=value1&q.key2=value2&q.key1=value3&q.key2=value4 >> should >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> be >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> received as as array of maps: [{key1: value1, key2: value2}, >> >>>>>>> {key3:value3, key4: value4}] etc. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I think it does not have to be maps of maps, but since our API is >> >>>>>>> query based these ugly hacks were invented. We should definitely >> get >> >>>>>>> rid of them, and perhaps work on the RESTful API layer, >> cloud-engine >> >>>>>>> and other good stuff we were talking about more than a year ago >> and >> >>>>>>> deprecate the present query API over next few years. Thoughts, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> flames? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Regards. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks. Cheers >> >>>>>>> Antonio Fornie >> >>>>>>> Schuberg Philis - MCE >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> > > > > -- > *Mike Tutkowski* > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > o: 303.746.7302 > Advancing the way the world uses the > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> > *(tm)* >
