On 25/11/13 16:50 -0600, Dolph Mathews wrote:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 25/11/13 09:28 +1000, Jamie Lennox wrote:
So the way we have this in keystone at least is that querying GET /
will
return all available API versions and querying /v2.0 for example is a
similar result with just the v2 endpoint. So you can hard pin a version
by using the versioned URL.
I spoke to somebody the other day about the discovery process in
services. The long term goal should be that the service catalog
contains
unversioned endpoints and that all clients should do discovery. For
keystone the review has been underway for a while now:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/38414/ the basics of this should be
able to be moved into OSLO for other projects if required.
Did you guys create your own 'home document' language? or did you base
it on some existing format? Is it documented somewhere? IIRC, there's
a thread where part of this was discussed, it was related to horizon.
I'm curious to know what you guys did and if you knew about
JSON-Home[0] when you started working on this.
It looks like our multiple choice response might predate Nottingham's proposal,
but not by much. In keystone, it's been stable since I joined the project,
midway through the diablo cycle (summer 2011). I don't know any more history
than that, but I've CC'd Jorge Williams, who probably knows.
I really like Nottingham's approach of adding relational links from the base
endpoint, I've been thinking about doing the same for keystone for quite a
while.
As crazy as it sounds, have you guys considered migrating to Nottingham's approach? We picked this approach because we didn't want to invent it ourselves and this happens to have a well defined RFC as well. If there's something Nottingham's proposal lacks of, I think we could provide some feedback and help making it better.
We used json-home for Marconi v1 and we'd want the client to work in a 'follow your nose' way. Since, I'd prefer OpenStack modules to use the same language for this, I'm curious to know why - if so - you created your own spec, what are the benefits and if it's documented somewhere. Then why didn't Marconi follow the lead of one of the other projects? ;)
LOOOL, I knew you were going to say that. I think I knew about you guys having something similar but at some point I most have forgotten about it. That being said, the main rationals were: 1) Using something documented and known upstream made more sense and it also helps getting more contributions from the community. 2) We already knew it, which falls back in point 1.
I completely agree though - standardized version discovery across the ecosystem would be fantastic.
All that being said, I don't think it would be very hard to migrate Marconi to something common if we agree that json-home is not good enough for OpenStack. Nonetheless, it'd be a shame not to provide feedback to Mark Nottingham about it. So far, his approach has been good enough for us - but, you know, Marconi is still way too small. Is keystone's home schema spec documented somewhere? Cheers, FF -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
pgpBx9SMtsMIc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
