…I think it is so you can have a header in a request that, once issued, can be passed for service to service, e.g.:
OpenStack-API-Version: identity 3.7, compute 2.11 Henry > On 18 Jun 2016, at 11:32, Jamie Lennox <jamielen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Quick question: why do we need the service type or name in there? You really > should know what API you're talking to already and it's just something that > makes it more difficult to handle all the different APIs in a common way. > > On Jun 18, 2016 8:25 PM, "Steve Martinelli" <s.martine...@gmail.com > <mailto:s.martine...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Looks like Manila is using the service name instead of type > (X-OpenStack-Manila-API-Version) according to this link anyway: > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/manila/devref/api_microversion_dev.html > <http://docs.openstack.org/developer/manila/devref/api_microversion_dev.html> > Keystone can follow the cross project spec and use the service type (Identity > instead of Keystone). > > On Jun 17, 2016 12:44 PM, "Ed Leafe" <e...@leafe.com <mailto:e...@leafe.com>> > wrote: > On Jun 17, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Henry Nash <henryna...@mac.com > <mailto:henryna...@mac.com>> wrote: > > > We are currently in the process of implementing microversion support in > > keystone - and are obviously trying to follow the cross-projec spec for > > this > > (http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/microversion_specification.html > > > > <http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/microversion_specification.html>). > > > > One thing I noticed was that the header specified in this spec is of the > > form: > > > > OpenStack-API-Version: [SERVICE_TYPE] [X,Y] > > > > for example: > > > > OpenStack-API-Version: identity 3.7 > > > > However, from what i can see of the current implementations I have seen of > > microversioning in OpenStack (Nova, Manilla), they use service-specific > > headers, e.g. > > > > X-OpenStack-Nova-API-Version: 2.12 > > > > My question is whether there a plan to converge on the generalized header > > format….or are we keep with the service-specific headers? I’d obviously > > like to implement the correct one for keystone. > > Yes, the plan is to converge on the more generic headers. The Nova headers > (don’t know about Manilla) pre-date the API WG spec, and were the motivation > for development of that spec. We’ve even made it possible to accept both > header formats [0] until things can be migrated to the recommended format. > > [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/300077/ > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/300077/> > > -- Ed Leafe > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > <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://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > <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
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
