Open Stack

On 07/20/2012 01:03 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 12:33 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> My preference would be to use 201/202 across the board for new
>>>> resources,
>>>> but I would love to know if there are any contrary opinions.
>>>
>>> My preference would be the same. That said, I believe that the API
>>> versions would need to be incremented for this to happen in a compatible
>>> way for clients of the APIs... so refactoring these kind of things for
>>> existing APIs should probably be done with the next API version.
>>
>> Hi Jay,
>>
>> Do you reckon this change warrants a full major version bump?
>
> Generally speaking non-backwards-compatible changes do require a version
> bump, yes. I know it seems like a trivial change, but it would break all
> clients expecting a 200 where a 201/202 would now be returned.

Agreed, I expect a number of clients are checking for 200, and not a 
generic 2xx status code. So, while I am all in favor of this change, I 
think it requires a version bump.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: sdague at linux.vnet.ibm.com
alt-email: sldague at us.ibm.com