2016-01-28 5:37 GMT+09:00 Ryan Brown <rybr...@redhat.com>: >> >> I think we would be better served in selecting these things thinking >> about the API consumers first. We already have enough for them to wade >> through, the API-WG is making great gains in herding those particular >> cats, I would hate to see giving back some of that here. >> >> so, instead of using examples where we have header names like >> "OpenStack-Some-[SERVICE_TYPE]-Header", maybe we should suggest >> "OpenStack-Some-[SERVICE_TYPE or PROJECT_NAME]-Header" as our >> guideline. >> >> >> I think the listed reviews have it right, only referencing service >> type. We have attempted to reduce the visible surface area of project >> names in a LOT of areas, I do not think this is one that needs to be an >> exception to that. > > > +1, I prefer service type over project name. Among other benefits, it leaves > room for multiple implementations without being totally baffling to > consumers.
+1 from me. We are working for microversions testing on Tempest side now, and the testing framework can be useful for all projects which implement microversions mechanism. In our idea, each project will pass service_type to the testing framework and Tempest will send a request with the microversion header which contains the service_type. If the guideline doesn't clarify service_type or project_name, the implementation ways of Tempest are different between projects and users/developers are confused when implementing new tests. I am feeling the guideline is for avoiding this kind of situation. As cdent said on previous mail, the api-wg guideline is just best practice, not rule. That seems just a recommendation, so it is nice to clarify it from our experience. Thanks Ken Ohmichi __________________________________________________________________________ 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
