2015-06-16 5:24 GMT+08:00 Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com>: > Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2015-06-15 14:00:43 -0700: > > On 06/15/2015 04:50 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:07:39PM -0400, Jay Pipes wrote: > > >> It has come to my attention in [1] that the microversion spec for > Nova [2] > > >> and Ironic [3] have used the project name -- i.e. Nova and Ironic -- > instead > > >> of the name of the API -- i.e. "OpenStack Compute" and "OpenStack Bare > > >> Metal" -- in the HTTP header that a client passes to indicate a > preference > > >> for or knowledge of a particular API microversion. > > >> > > >> The original spec said that the HTTP header should contain the name > of the > > >> service type returned by the Keystone service catalog (which is also > the > > >> official name of the REST API). I don't understand why the spec was > changed > > >> retroactively and why Nova has been changed to return > > >> X-OpenStack-Nova-API-Version instead of > X-OpenStack-Compute-API-Version HTTP > > >> headers [4]. > > >> > > >> To be blunt, Nova is the *implementation* of the OpenStack Compute > API. > > >> Ironic is the *implementation* of the OpenStack BareMetal API. > > > > > > While I tend to agree in principle, do we reasonably expect that other > > > implementations of these APIs will implement every one of these > > > versions? Can we even reasonably expect another implementation of these > > > APIs? > > > > > > // jim > > > > Yeh, honestly, I'm not really convinced that thinking we are doing this > > for alternative implementations is really the right approach (or even > > desireable). Honestly, the transition to microversions makes alternative > > implementations harder because there isn't a big frozen API for a long > > period of time. > > > > Actually that makes an alternative implementation more valuable. Without > microversions those alternative implementations would have to wait a long > time to implement fixes to the API, but now can implement and publish > the fix as soon as the microversion lands. This means that alternative > implementations will lag _less_ behind the primary. >
So if our min_version is 2.1 and the max_version is 2.50. That means alternative implementations need implement all the 50 versions api...that sounds pain... > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
