Ah, I messed up the order in my last email. You're right, v1.1 maps to what nova does, and is what we should follow.
Jorge, I'd still be interested in whether there is a set of style guidelines that we should use to guarantee consistency across openstack APIs. Thanks, dan On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Jason Kölker <ja...@koelker.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 11:21 -0700, Dan Wendlandt wrote: > > Adding netstack again... please try to keep it CC'ed :) > > > > > > Yong, great that you're digging up these differences. Would be good > > to add an example of a "list" query to the wiki > > page: http://wiki.openstack.org/QuantumV2APIIntro > > > > > > I don't have an opinion on one of the options below > > being fundamentally better than the other, but a general goal is to > > achieve consistency across different openstack APIs. The 2.0 > > approach does seem more inline with nova's list server method > > ( > http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-compute/2/content/List_Servers-d1e2078.html#d6e1175), > and such consistency seems like a good thing. > > > > > > Adding Jorge and Erik from Rackspace, as I really think we could > > benefit from openstack-wide consistency guidelines with respect to > > questions like this (as well as style items like camel-case vs. > > underscores vs. dashes). > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Yong Sheng Gong <gong...@cn.ibm.com> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Jason, > > I see some differences between returned values 1.1 and 2.0 > > api: > > 2.0 list network: > > { > > u 'networks': [{ > > u 'network': { > > u 'subnets': [], > > u 'name': u 'private3', > > u 'admin_state_up': True, > > u 'op_status': u 'ACTIVE', > > u 'id': u '5d7c4e4e-366f-49a4-bec8-92f5610d01d9', > > u 'tags': [] > > } > > }, { > > u 'network': { > > u 'subnets': [], > > u 'name': u 'private3', > > u 'admin_state_up': True, > > u 'op_status': u 'ACTIVE', > > u 'id': u '6bb9b6df- > > 4b81-41b5-8743-587d0b6147f9', > > u 'tags': [] > > } > > }] > > } > > 1.1 is: > > { > > u 'networks': [{ > > u 'subnets': [], > > u 'name': u 'private3', > > u 'admin_state_up': True, > > u 'op_status': u 'ACTIVE', > > u 'id': u '5d7c4e4e-366f-49a4-bec8-92f5610d01d9', > > u 'tags': [] > > } > > , { > > u 'subnets': [], > > u 'name': u 'private3', > > u 'admin_state_up': True, > > u 'op_status': u 'ACTIVE', > > u 'id': u '6bb9b6df- > > 4b81-41b5-8743-587d0b6147f9', > > u 'tags': [] > > } > > ] > > } > > > > I think we should use 1.1 format. > > I agree that the list of resources should not be wrapped in the resource > object. This slipped by in a refactoring. I updated the merge prop. > > Happy Hacking! > > 7-11 > > > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dan Wendlandt Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com twitter: danwendlandt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
