tack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: api incompatibility between 4.1 and 4.2 in ACLs
>
> Yes, master as of today lists all acls with a newly created user-level
> account.
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Marcus Sorensen
> wrote:
> > I can say in practice, at least, if
for 80-443, and only one of the rules will work
>>>(the one with priority). That would cause confusion as far as
>>>understanding why a rule isn't working. I'll see if I can dig it up on
>>>my own as well.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
t;>> From: Marcus Sorensen
>>>>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org"
>>>>> Date: Monday, November 11, 2013 1:10 PM
>>>>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org"
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: api incomp
don't get a response back from someone explaining/validating the new
>>>behavior.
>>>
>>>On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Alena Prokharchyk
>>> wrote:
>>>> Marcus, if any of the CS API command(s) return the error for
>>>> parameter/parameter combin
13 PM, Kishan Kavala
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Marcus,
>>> aclid is optional when creating a networlACL. In 4.1, networkId is
>>> mandatory for creating ACL. So, when networkId is specified instead of
>>>aclid
>>> in 4.2, CS gets the aclList ass
t;>
>> From: Marcus Sorensen
>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org"
>> Date: Monday, November 11, 2013 1:10 PM
>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org"
>>
>> Subject: Re: api incompatibility between 4.1 and 4.2 in ACLs
>>
>> Ok, I&#x
ena.
>
> From: Marcus Sorensen
> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org"
> Date: Monday, November 11, 2013 1:10 PM
> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org"
>
> Subject: Re: api incompatibility between 4.1 and 4.2 in ACLs
>
> Ok, I'll dig deeper into it. Our ap
: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Date: Monday, November 11, 2013 1:10 PM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: api incompa
2013 1:13 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: Kishan Kavala
>> Subject: Re: api incompatibility between 4.1 and 4.2 in ACLs
>>
>> Yes, that would certainly maintain api compatibility if one creates an ACL
>> without specifying aclid, it creates a new list
ified.
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 9 November 2013 1:13 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Cc: Kishan Kavala
> Subject: Re: api incompatibility between 4.1 and 4.2 in ACLs
>
> Yes, that would certainly maintain api
org/QKI
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 11:24 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Cc: Kishan Kavala
>> Subject: RE: api incompatibility betwee
t; Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 9:13 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: api incompatibility between 4.1 and 4.2 in ACLs
> >
> > So I take the silence to simply be a collective "oops". I guess this
> > just should serve as a reminder to not break API co
ev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Date: Friday, November 8, 2013 11:23 AM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Cc: Kishan Kavala mailto:kishan.kav...@citrix.com>>
Sub
I will let Kishan comment but found this thread
http://markmail.org/thread/fxzki6ftqacyrylk
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 9:13 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: api incompatibil
So I take the silence to simply be a collective "oops". I guess this
just should serve as a reminder to not break API compatibility without
a discussion. Perhaps our tests will surface this better in the future
(although I need to look, I wonder if any ACL tests were also simply
changed to accomod
15 matches
Mail list logo
