On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:39 AM, John Dickinson <m...@not.mn> wrote: > I am concerned about some of the implications that are being discussed. > > 1) A WADL is part of documentation of an API. Nobody is going to object to > more documentation. > > 2) Being an open-source project, if somebody wants to commit to creating and > maintaining a WADL for a particular part of Openstack, they are free to. > Alternately, persuade somebody else to do it. However, having a WADL to > describe a particular component of openstack is not something that can be > forced onto that component. Phrases like "All services should have WADLs" are > either meaningless (unenforcible or not really all services) or oppressive > (mandating requirements on a project). > > 3) A WADL is not a replacement for any sort of dev documentation, and in > fact, still requires there to be human-readable dev docs. > > Specifically for swift, not one of the current developers are going to either > write or maintain a WADL for the swift API. However, we'll be happy to assist > anyone who wants to write and maintain docs for swift, including WADLs. > > The important thing is that code talks. If you want WADLs (or your flavor of > WADLs), make them! Stop trying to architect systems for architects. These > things are meant to be used. Let's focus on what is necessary for getting a > reliable system into the hands of those who will be using it. > > (Just about all of the above goes for things like API versioning, too. And > packaging vs tarballs vs python libraries. And polling vs pushing. And the > true meaning of what a ReST interface is.)
Not sure what this means from a personal existential viewpoint, but I completely agree with John. Weird. -jay _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
