<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>On 2/9/15, 8:44 PM, "Joe Gordon" <<a href="mailto:joe.gordon0@gmail.com">joe.gordon0@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Jay Pipes <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com" target="_blank">jaypipes@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class="">On 01/20/2015 10:54 AM, Brian Rosmaita wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
From: Kevin L. Mitchell [<a href="mailto:kevin.mitchell@rackspace.com" target="_blank">kevin.mitchell@rackspace.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 4:54 PM<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
When we look at consistency, we look at everything else in OpenStack.<br>
From the standpoint of the nova API (with which I am the most familiar),<br>
I am not aware of any property that is ever omitted from any payload<br>
without versioning coming in to the picture, even if its value is null.<br>
Thus, I would argue that we should encourage the first situation, where<br>
all properties are included, even if their value is null.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is not the case for the Images API v2:<br>
<br>
"An image is always guaranteed to have the following attributes: id,<br>
status, visibility, protected, tags, created_at, file and self. The other<br>
attributes defined in the image schema below are guaranteed to<br>
be defined, but is only returned with an image entity if they have<br>
been explicitly set." [1]<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span>This was a mistake, IMHO. Having entirely extensible schemas means that there is little guaranteed consistency across implementations of the API.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>+1, Subtle hard to discover differences between clouds is a pain for interchangeability. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jay and Joe, thanks for weighing in. I’m still not convinced that the course taken in the Images v2 API was a mistake, though. (I wasn’t involved in its initial design, so this isn’t personal, just curiosity.) Here are a few reasons why, maybe someone
can set me straight?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(1) Leaving null elements out is parsimonious.</div>
<div>As long as there’s a JSON schema, the client has a good idea what to expect. If you include</div>
<div> “whatever”: null</div>
<div>in the response, I don’t see what that buys you. If you simply don’t include the “whatever” element, the recipient knows it’s not set. If you do include it set to null, you know that it’s not set … and you increased the size of the response payload without
increasing its informativeness. Further, even if you include the “whatever” element set to null, the client is still going to have to check it to handle the null case, so it’s really just a matter of how the client checks, not whether it has to check.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(2) Leaving null elements out doesn’t affect interchangeability.</div>
<div>If our convention is that unset elements aren’t included, and we’ve got a JSON schema, then everyone knows what’s up. Further, looking specifically at the use cases for images in Glance, different clouds have different sets of image properties that they
use for specific purposes that may be unique to their cloud. For example, some may put a hyperlink to licensing info in an image property, or versioning info, or package lists, or whatever you can fit in 255 chars. So a client (intelligent or not) connecting
to various clouds can’t expect to find the same set of properties defined in every cloud (except for the ones guaranteed by contract, which are listed above). Thus, you’re going to have to deal with the problem of non-existent elements when you get to the
additionalProperties in JSON no matter what. But as long as you know this, you’re OK. I think it’s a much bigger problem when you’ve got a mixture of null, “”, {} and other ways of conveying empty elements in a response. By simply leaving properties out,
there’s no question that they’re not set.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(3) A little consistency is a good thing.</div>
<div>Jay mentions that having entirely extensible schemas means that there’s little guaranteed consistency across implementations of the API. In the Images API v2 case, the schema isn’t
<span style="font-weight: bold;">entirely</span> extensible, you can add string-valued additionalProperties. So there’s that. But the bigger picture is that we’re in at the infancy of clouds and cloud management, there’s no way we can anticipate the set of
Image properties that will be sufficient for all deployers. So as long as the consistency guarantees are met for the small set of properties they’re guaranteed for, I don’t have a problem with the majority of image properties being variable … as long as we
know what type each is, which we do, they’re all strings.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>cheers,</div>
<div>brian</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>