chyk <
>> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Antonio, sure I will review the patch. But please make sure that
>> API
>> >>>>>>> backwards compatibly is intact, otherwise the fix won¹t be
>> acce
te:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Alena,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The reasons for this strange format? I don't know. There doesn't
> seem to
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>&
>>>>>>> one. After asking on my team and in the dev list I thought perhaps you
>>>>>>> could know. It seems we all see it strange and nobody knows why. But of
>>>>>>> course, if it is for reasons I will stop the change.
>>>>>>
ange.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And about the DB, you are right, in the DB is not like I said. But you
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> have this in a table row field:
>>>>>> {0={value=Toronto,
map on the fly are copies of each other: instead of fixing the
>>>> structure in one method, the are plenty of methods almost identical
>>>> copying
>>>> and pasting the same lines. Some times the same method twice in the same
>>>> cmd class for two Map par
1- params in wich the get method fixes the params on the fly. In these of
>>>>> course the strange format is not propagated anymore. But this is still
>>>>> wrong: the format itself before the get is invoked, the time spent on
>>>>> fixing something th
instead of fixing the
>>>> structure in one method, the are plenty of methods almost identical
>>>> copying
>>>> and pasting the same lines. Some times the same method twice in the same
>>>> cmd class for two Map params (look CreateNetworkOfferingCmd
&g
methods almost identical
>>>> copying
>>>> and pasting the same lines. Some times the same method twice in the same
>>>> cmd class for two Map params (look CreateNetworkOfferingCmd
>>>> #getServiceCapabilities and #getServiceProviders).
>>>&
he same method twice in the same
>>> cmd class for two Map params (look CreateNetworkOfferingCmd
>>> #getServiceCapabilities and #getServiceProviders).
>>>
>>> 2- params in which the get method returns the map as it is. With the
>>> strange format
lue="Toronto"
>>
>> You store in the table network_offeringstags, field tags, the String:
>> {0={value=Toronto,key=City}}
>> (including brackets and all)
>>
>> So knowing all this I guess you agree this should be refactored... unless
>> at some point th
t of the cases and it all seems to work.
>
>
> It would be great if once I upload the patch somebody could help me double
> check that it doesn't brake anything, not only reviewing to code. I did
> plenty of tests of many kinds, but I cannot be sure that I am covering
> eno
pects
the
strange format.
->ConfigurationManagerImpl line 1545
Thanks. Cheers
Antonio
2014-02-28 18:44 GMT+01:00 Alena Prokharchyk
mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>>:
From: Antonio Fornié Casarrubios
mailto:antonio.for...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, February 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM
To: Rohi
u store in the table network_offeringstags, field tags, the String:
>>>> >{0={value=Toronto,key=City}}
>>>> >(including brackets and all)
>>>> >
>>>> >So knowing all this I guess you agree this should be refactored...
>>>>unless
&g
ook CreateNetworkOfferingCmd
> >>>> >#getServiceCapabilities and #getServiceProviders).
> >>>> >
> >>>> >2- params in which the get method returns the map as it is. With the
> >>>> >strange format. For example,
> >>
>>> >You store in the table network_offeringstags, field tags, the String:
>>>> >{0={value=Toronto,key=City}}
>>>> >(including brackets and all)
>>>> >
>>>> >So knowing all this I guess you agree this should be refactored...
>>&
>>> >at some point the strange format is needed. But after looking for it
>>> >everywhere I didn't find any place where it was. I already did the
>>>change
>>> >and tested most of the cases and it all seems to work.
>>> >
>>> >
>
;> >and tested most of the cases and it all seems to work.
>> >
>> >
>> >It would be great if once I upload the patch somebody could help me double
>> >check that it doesn't brake anything, not only reviewing to code. I did
>> >plenty of tests of
strange format.
> >->ConfigurationManagerImpl line 1545
> >
> >
> >Thanks. Cheers
> >Antonio
> >
> >
> >2014-02-28 18:44 GMT+01:00 Alena Prokharchyk
> >:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Antonio Fornié Casarrubios
I am covering
>enough. Further, there seem to be several places where the code expects
>the
>strange format.
>->ConfigurationManagerImpl line 1545
>
>
>Thanks. Cheers
>Antonio
>
>
>2014-02-28 18:44 GMT+01:00 Alena Prokharchyk
>:
>
>>
>>
>
, Alena Prokharchyk <
> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][QUESTION] Map parameters in API Commands
>
> Hi Alena,
>
> I would like to know your opinion on this change. Mainly consists on:
> 1- Change the way we store the Map params after unpackParams in
;
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][QUESTION] Map parameters in API Commands
Hi Alena,
I would like to know your opinion on this change. Mainly consists on:
1- Change the way we store the Map params after unpackParams in order to have,
for each Map param, a Map instead of Map>.
-Antonio, what was the reason f
Hi Alena,
I would like to know your opinion on this change. Mainly consists on:
1- Change the way we store the Map params after unpackParams in order to
have, for each Map param, a Map instead of Map>.
2- There are many commands that fix this strange format on demand on their
getters, so they do
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Antonio Fornié Casarrubios
wrote:
> Hi Rohit,
>
> I didn't mean changing the format of the HTTP request, but only changing the
> intermediate format in which we keep it in the property of the Command
> class. I mentioned the format in the request just to explain wh
Hi Rohit,
I didn't mean changing the format of the HTTP request, but only changing
the intermediate format in which we keep it in the property of the Command
class. I mentioned the format in the request just to explain what I meant.
My proposal is to leave the request format as it is, but then wh
Hi Antonio,
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Antonio Fornié Casarrubios
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> When invoking a CS API command that has parameters of type Map, the request
> will be something like this:
> URL/api?command=createTags&tags[0].key=region&tags[0].value=canada&tags[1].key=name&tags[1].val
25 matches
Mail list logo
