Well said John.
-joe
On Oct 28, 2011, at 8:26 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> Swift had the advantage of starting out as a closed source project that
>> only had to serve a single master, and thus didn't need external
>> orchestration to keep it
Couldn't agree more with this
On a side-note, I'm now going to sign all emails as
Weird,
-Matt
On 10/28/11 12:54 PM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:39 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
>> I am concerned about some of the implications that are being discussed.
>>
>> 1) A WADL is part o
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:39 AM, John Dickinson 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
On Oct 28, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> Swift had the advantage of starting out as a closed source project that
> only had to serve a single master, and thus didn't need external
> orchestration to keep it on track. Nova, OTOH, as a community development
> effort, essentially had
On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:39 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
> 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
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 Opensta
d simplify the task of keeping
>>>>>>> those docs up to date.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lorin
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Lorin Hochstein, Computer Scientist
>>>>>>> USC Information Sciences Institute
>
;>>>> --
>>>>>> Lorin Hochstein, Computer Scientist
>>>>>> USC Information Sciences Institute
>>>>>> 703.812.3710
>>>>>> http://www.east.isi.edu/~lorin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
> 703.812.3710
>>>>> http://www.east.isi.edu/~lorin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:54 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
>>>>>> Sounds awesome!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've done an application like this in the past where
es, display widget, etc). Not
>>>>> something WADL supports inherently I'm sure. But, I know from experience
>>>>> this can work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really care what the IDL is, so long as we don't have to write a
>>>
ch appeal
(although JSON in C keeps me awake at night).
-S
From: Mark Nottingham [m...@mnot.net<mailto:m...@mnot.net>]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:38 AM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: Mellquist, Peter; Joseph Heck;
openstack@lists.launchpad.net<mai
7;m sure. But, I know from experience this can
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really care what the IDL is, so long as we don't have to write a
>>>> parser for it in 10 different languages ... which is why XML/JSON hold
>>>&
Sandy Walsh
Cc: Mellquist, Peter; Joseph Heck;
openstack@lists.launchpad.net<mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>
Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
I'm totally on board with having the interface being machine-consumable at
runtime -- see the previous discussion on v
ark Nottingham [m...@mnot.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:38 AM
>> To: Sandy Walsh
>> Cc: Mellquist, Peter; Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
>>
>> I'm totally on board with h
; Cc: Mellquist, Peter; Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
>
> I'm totally on board with having the interface being machine-consumable at
> runtime -- see the previous discussion on versioning and extensibility -- but
: Mark Nottingham [m...@mnot.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:38 AM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: Mellquist, Peter; Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
I'm totally on board with having the interface being machine-consumable at
ru
gt;
> From: Mark Nottingham [m...@mnot.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:16 AM
> To: Sandy Walsh
> Cc: Mellquist, Peter; Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
>
ttingham [m...@mnot.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:16 AM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: Mellquist, Peter; Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
On 26/10/2011, at 11:17 PM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
> As discussed at the summit, I agree th
On 26/10/2011, at 11:17 PM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
> As discussed at the summit, I agree there should be some form of IDL (WADL
> being the likely candidate for REST), I think manually crafting/maintaining a
> WADL (or XML in general) is a fools errand. This stuff is made for machine
> consumption
et
Subject: Re: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
I don't mind generating a WADL so long as we have a good expressive tool for
doing so. I haven't found one yet. There was a project a while back for doing
so called "Rest Described and Compile" that seemed to be h
++Totally agree with that approach.
Looking forward to looking over the Images 2.0 API :-)
-jOrGe W.
On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Mellquist, Peter
> wrote:
>> The topic of when an API should be defined is also important. Do we define
>> an
11 2:06 AM
> To: Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
>
> Excellent topic Joe, thanks for bringing this up.
>
> There are two main perspectives on WADLs: WADLs from a service developer
> point of view and WADLs fro
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Mellquist, Peter
wrote:
> The topic of when an API should be defined is also important. Do we define an
> API / WADL 1) up front before the service is implemented, 2) in parallel with
> the impl, 3) or after the impl? I am an advocate of #1 or perhaps #2 but not
: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 2:06 AM
To: Joseph Heck; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: [Openstack] +1, All services should have WADLs
Excellent topic Joe, thanks for bringing this up.
There are two main perspectives on WADLs: WADLs from a service developer point
of view and WADLs from a
Excellent topic Joe, thanks for bringing this up.
There are two main perspectives on WADLs: WADLs from a service developer point
of view and WADLs from a cloud developer point of view. I consider the later
the most important since we need to ensure that developers who write all the
killer Opens
25 matches
Mail list logo
