2011/10/11 Mark McLoughlin <mar...@redhat.com>: > I think the versioning rules below are fine, but there are some other > things to think about: > > - As others raised, what version (if any) should be in the URIs? > > We could put the full version number in the URIs so long as we > maintain support for the older, compatible versions i.e. the current > version is 1.5.3 but clients can still use the 1.4.0, 1.5.2 etc. URIs > > The only problem I see with that is that it might appear like > clients connecting to the 1.4.0 URI should expect only the features > that were available in 1.4.0.
Why is that a problem? That seems entirely reasonable to me. If a client is written for an old version of the API how would it even know to look for these new concepts/features? -- Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/ _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
