On 02/05/2016 03:00 PM, michael mccune wrote:
> On 02/03/2016 10:23 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net
>> <mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote:
>>
>> I've been looking through the reviews on and where it's gotten to -
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243429/4/guidelines/microversion_specification.rst
>>
>>
>>
>> A couple of questions / concerns.
>>
>> There was major push back from API-WG on 'API' itself being in the
>> headers. What is the data on what services are already doing? My
>> understanding is this is convention for all every service so far,
>> mostly
>> because that's how we did it in Nova. Forcing a header change for
>> that
>> seems massively bike shed. There is zero value gained in such a
>> change
>> by anyone, and just confusion.
>>
>
> i don't see a conflict with the guideline proposing removing API from
> the header. if nova moves to support both headers in the future that
> would be awesome, but not strictly necessary.
>
> i think what we wanted was to make sure that new projects will be on the
> same page about this. (although, i can understand that they will cry
> "but nova doesn't do that")
I feel like if we are going for consistency, then we need to think about
what's out there as well.
Consistency trumps purity. An extra 4 letters which are strictly not
needed, but are at least consistent across projects, is much less of an
issue to consumers than it being different between old / new headers or
different services. And becomes something everyone has to look up every
time they write an implementation, vs. knowing how they all work, and
just iterating on name.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
__________________________________________________________________________
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
