Open Stack

On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 01:33 -0400, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Yeah. A few things pop to mind:
> 
> 1) I think extensions should have a version all their own. Right now,
> there is no versioning of an extension's REST API and therefore there is
> no safeguard in place to prevent backwards-incompatible API changes in
> an extension.

They do.  Extensions have an "updated" class attribute which contains a
date and time in ISO-8601 format.  That is, admittedly, clunky, and I
personally would prefer a number or dotted-number version format.

> 2) Get rid of the os: prefix. It's silly and confusing. It can be
> misinterpreted to mean "operating system" and if it means "OpenStack",
> then its redundant -- what descriptive value does it denote?

Well, it's meant to differentiate extensions that are possible future
first-class elements of the API from vendor-specific elements.  Would
you prefer "osapi"?

> 3) Get rid of the concept of "admin extensions". An extension is an
> extension. Whether or not it is an administrative action is entirely up
> to the deployer and what they set in the policy.json files.

Actually, the situation is already exactly as you describe here: an
"admin extension" is merely an extension with policy configured to allow
access to admins.  We seem to be using the term "admin extension" merely
to convey to users that a particular extension is intended for
administrators.
-- 
Kevin L. Mitchell <kevin.mitchell at rackspace.com>