On 06/11/2014 02:34 AM, Mark Washenberger wrote:
I think the tasks stuff is something different, though. A task is a
(potentially) long-running operation. So it would be possible for an
action to result in the creation of a task. As the proposal stands
today, the actions we've been looking at are an alternative to the
document-oriented PATCH HTTP verb. There was nearly unanimous consensus
that we found "POST /resources/actions/verb {inputs to verb}" to be a
more expressive and intuitive way of accomplishing some workflows than
trying to use JSON-PATCH documents.
Why do tasks necessarily mean the operation is long-running? As
mentioned before to Brian R, just have the deactivation action be a
task. There's no need to create a new faux-resource called 'action', IMO...
Best,
-jay
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com
<mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net
<mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote:
On 05/30/2014 02:22 PM, Hemanth Makkapati wrote:
> Hello All,
> I'm writing to notify you of the approach the Glance
community has
> decided to take for doing functional API. Also, I'm writing
to solicit
> your feedback on this approach in the light of cross-project API
> consistency.
>
> At the Atlanta Summit, the Glance team has discussed introducing
> functional API in Glance so as to be able to expose
operations/actions
> that do not naturally fit into the CRUD-style. A few
approaches are
> proposed and discussed here
>
<https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-adding-functional-operations-to-api>.
> We have all converged on the approach to include 'action' and
action
> type in the URL. For instance, 'POST
> /images/{image_id}/actions/{action_type}'.
>
> However, this is different from the way Nova does actions.
Nova includes
> action type in the payload. For instance, 'POST
> /servers/{server_id}/action {"type": "<action_type>", ...}'.
At this
> point, we hit a cross-project API consistency issue mentioned
here
>
<https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-cross-project-consistency-across-rest-apis>
> (under the heading 'How to act on resource - cloud perform on
> resources'). Though we are differing from the way Nova does
actions and
> hence another source of cross-project API inconsistency , we
have a few
> reasons to believe that Glance's way is helpful in certain ways.
>
> The reasons are as following:
> 1. Discoverability of operations. It'll be easier to expose
permitted
> actions through schemas a json home document living at
> /images/{image_id}/actions/.
> 2. More conducive for rate-limiting. It'll be easier to
rate-limit
> actions in different ways if the action type is available in
the URL.
> 3. Makes more sense for functional actions that don't require
a request
> body (e.g., image deactivation).
>
> At this point we are curious to see if the API conventions group
> believes this is a valid and reasonable approach.
> Any feedback is much appreciated. Thank you!
Honestly, I like POST /images/{image_id}/actions/{action_type} much
better than ACTION being embedded in the body (the way nova
currently
does it), for the simple reason of reading request logs:
I agree that not including the action type in the POST body is much
nicer and easier to read in logs, etc.
That said, I prefer to have resources actually be things that the
software creates. An action isn't created. It is performed.
I would prefer to replace the term "action(s)" with the term
"task(s)", as is proposed for Nova [1].
Then, I'd be happy as a pig in, well, you know.
Best,
-jay
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86938/
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
