Haha, thanks Everett, you're totally right.
Anyway, with or without "f_", I want to ensure we will use "updated_at
=gte:some_timestamp" like guideline said, or use "changes-since=
some_timestamp". Since I think this function it's useful to query resources
and we should introduce it into projects(s
On Aug 9, 2015, at 11:03 PM, hao wang
mailto:sxmatch1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi, stackers
Since now we have merged filtering guideline[1], is that said we should
implement this feature according this guideline? like this:
"GET /app/items?f_updated_at=gte:some_timestamp"
Do we have reached a c
>"GET /app/items?f_updated_at=gte:some_timestamp"
I guess this should only return existing entries in a collection, while the
proposition was to add deleted entries to the result too (if we use
changes_since). More like a delta, than simple filtering.
--
Kirill Zaitsev
Murano team
Software Eng
Hi, stackers
Since now we have merged filtering guideline[1], is that said we should
implement this feature according this guideline? like this:
*"GET /app/items?f_updated_at=gte:some_timestamp"*
Do we have reached a consensus about this?
2015-06-19 17:07 GMT+08:00 Chris Dent :
>
> There's an
Keystone also has a resource that provides changes since[1], the query
parameter used is "since".
[1]
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/api/v3/identity-api-v3-os-revoke-ext.html#list-revocation-events
Ciao, Brant
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 06/19
On 06/19/2015 05:07 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
>
> There's an open question in the API-WG on whether to formalize or
> otherwise enshrine the concept of a "changes-since" query parameter
> on collection oriented resources across the projects. The original
> source of this concept is from Nova's API:
>
From: Chris Dent
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 4:07 AM
To: OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [api] [all] To changes-since or not to changes-since
There's an open question in the API-WG on whether to formalize or
otherwise enshrine t
On 06/19/2015 04:03 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
>
>
> On 6/19/15, 14:39, "Ian Cordasco" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/15, 14:26, "Kevin L. Mitchell"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 10:07 +0100, Chris Dent wrote:
* Are there additional relevant pros and cons for the two proposals?
* Ar
On 6/19/15, 14:39, "Ian Cordasco" wrote:
>
>
>On 6/19/15, 14:26, "Kevin L. Mitchell"
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 10:07 +0100, Chris Dent wrote:
>>> * Are there additional relevant pros and cons for the two proposals?
>>> * Are there additional proposals which can address the shortcomings
On 6/19/15, 14:26, "Kevin L. Mitchell"
wrote:
>On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 10:07 +0100, Chris Dent wrote:
>> * Are there additional relevant pros and cons for the two proposals?
>> * Are there additional proposals which can address the shortcomings
>>in either?
>
>On the latter question, would us
On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 10:07 +0100, Chris Dent wrote:
> * Are there additional relevant pros and cons for the two proposals?
> * Are there additional proposals which can address the shortcomings
>in either?
On the latter question, would using the If-Modified-Since header[1] make
any sense as a
11 matches
Mail list logo
