On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 16:40 +0200, Soren Hansen wrote: > 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?
Not so much a problem, I guess, as a source of confusion - it's unclear why the service would expose an identical API via multiple URIs Cheers, Mark. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
