On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Everett Toews <everett.to...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell < > kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 12:19 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote: > >> I'm all for consistency. Sounds like a great case for the API Working > >> Group to document. You can propose a patch describing the way we want > >> sorting to work. > >> > >> > >> See https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/api-wg,n,z > > > > I really think that the API WG should be responsible for the REST API > > only, TBH, and maybe for the Pythonic APIs. Once we start talking about > > CLI options, I think that's outside the API WG's perview, and we > > probably should have that be up to CLI authors. My thinking is that a > > REST API and a Python API are both used by developers, where we have one > > set of conventions; but when you start talking about CLI, you're really > > talking about UX, and the rules there can be vastly different. > > Agreed. The scope [1] of the API WG is the HTTP (REST) API. > > We won’t be touching any language SDKs (one of which is referred to as > Pythonic APIs above) or any CLIs. > Ah, yes, my apologies. I had mistakenly thought these were sorts for the API. Yes, I agree this has the potential for a nice cross-project spec. Anne > > Thanks, > Everett > > [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/API_Working_Group#Scope > _______________________________________________ > 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
