George Reese wrote: > No, not at all.
> The object is /servers/1234 regardless of the versioning of the API. It's an object that exists > independent of your API and its version. A URI should represent a single, persistent reference to that object. > The version is really an attribute of the content type you are accepting. It tells you what kind of content the > client is expected to send to you and to receive from you. In particular, the structure of the data representing the persistent object. > /servers/1234 should always represent that 1 server. Forever. Unless the URI has changed, in which case a v1 client will respond > with a 302 and a v2 client with a 404. A v1 client can then query /instances/1234 and get the version 1 xml or json. A v2 client > querying /instances/1234 gets version 2 xml or json. Another angle on this (which leads to the same conclusion) is to state that the API has verbs which reference objects. The object references should not change, ever. It may be possible to come up with additional methods of referencing the same objects but even that would be fairly exceptional. The signature for a given supported verb should also never change. Period. New signatures may supplement the existing set, but should very seldom invalidate a previously valid method signature. Over time a server will typically end up supporting multiple signatures to support the same operation, which will include Some signatures that are now recognized as only supporting a portion of the clients' requirements. So, an "API version number" is a short hand method of publishing the set of method signatures that a server supports. As a reporting attribute it can be useful, but what is the benefit of encoding it in the URI? Essentially when you go form "API version 1" to "API version 2" in the URIs you are renaming all the signatures. But why Rename methods that are identical to their prior version? Isn't that supposed to be the *normal* case? If you are going to apply version numbers, why not do it on a per method basis? This is v2 of "GET", etc. Having an overall Version number to simplify reporting makes sense, by there is no need to have it in the URI itself. And why have a syntactic Method for renaming methods? What's so bad about calling this radical new method "GetV2"? _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
