Open Stack

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>
wrote:

> As most of you already know, work is beginning to move forward on the
> micro-versioned Neutron API, for which a specification is available at [1]
>
>
Yes, I just approved the spec in fact.


> From a practical perspective there is one non-negligible preliminary issue
> that needs attention. then Neutron API URI prefix includes the full version
> number - currently 2.0. For instance:
>
>  http://neutron_server:9696/v2.0/networks.json
>
> This clearly makes a microversioned approach a bit weird - if you have to
> use, for instance, 2.0 as a URI prefix for API version 2.12.
> On the one hand it might make sense to start the micro-versioned API as a
> sort of clean slate, possibly using a version-agnostic URI prefix or no
> prefix at all; also as pointed out by some community members it will give a
> chance to validate this versioned API approach.
> This will have however the drawback that both the unversioned,
> extension-based so-called 2.0 API will keep living and evolving
> side-by-side with the versioned API, and then switching to the versioned
> API will not be transparent to clients.
> It would be good to receive some opinions from the developer and user
> community on the topic.
>
>
I'll defer to your judgement here Salv, but it seems as if we move to no
prefix at all, that's where we want to eventually be. And it has the
benefit of letting us test this out.


> Furthermore, another topic that has been brought up is whether plugins
> should be allowed to control the version of the API server, like specifying
> minimum and maximum version. My short answer is no, because the plugin
> should implement the API, not controlling it. Also, the spec provides a
> facility for plugins to disable features if they are unable to support them.
>
>
Agree with your short answer.


> Finally, I received queries from several community members that would be
> keen on helping supporting this microversioning effort. I wonder if the PTL
> and the API lieutenants would ok with agreeing to have a team of developers
> meeting regularly, working towards implementing this feature, and report
> progress and/or issues to the general Neutron meeting.
>
>
Yes, this makes sense. I'll defer to you, Henry and Akihiro to setup a time
for this. Syncing weekly as you and the team work through this would
hopefully expedite the work!

Thanks!
Kyle


> Salvatore
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/136760/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150611/61ae570a/attachment.html>