Open Stack

Also agree with Stan.

I'd like to refrain from bumping version to the next integer each time some
change is done to the markup format. It's quite a small change after all,
also big numbers in format's version imply that it's changed every friday
and should not be relied on.
08.07.2014 22:10 пользователь "Ekaterina Chernova" <efedorova at mirantis.com>
написал:

> Hi guys!
>
> I agreed with Stan suggestion. We also need to track somewhere in the
> documentation for mapping between the Murano version and Dynamic UI
> version.
>
> BTW, what about to keep version values in integer, so the next one would
> be 3?
>
> Regards, Kate.
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Stan Lagun <slagun at mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> I we increment version to say 2.1 we could add code to dashboard to check
>> for markup version and if it encounters version 2.0 to print verbose error
>> telling how to migrate markup to 2.1.
>> I don't see how both version can be supported simulteniously but at lease
>> Version attribute must be checked and forms older version must fail with
>> descriptive message rather than causing unpredictable behavior.
>>
>> Sincerely yours,
>> Stan Lagun
>> Principal Software Engineer @ Mirantis
>>
>>  <slagun at mirantis.com>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Timur Sufiev <tsufiev at mirantis.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, folks!
>>>
>>> Recently we had decided to change a bit how Murano's dynamic UI works,
>>> namely do not explicitly specify 'name' field in first 'Add
>>> Application' form, but add it here automatically, since every
>>> component in Murano has a name. To avoid confusion with the 'name'
>>> field added by hand to the first form's markup, 'name' field on the
>>> first step will be forbidden and processing of an old UI markup which
>>> has such field will cause an exception. All these changes are
>>> described in the blueprint [1] in a greater detail.
>>>
>>> What is not entirely clear to me is whether should we increase
>>> 'Version' attribute of UI markup or not? On one hand, the format of UI
>>> markup is definitely changing - and old UI definitions won't work with
>>> the UI processor after [1] is implemented. It is quite reasonable to
>>> bump a format's version to reflect that fact. On the other hand, we
>>> will hardly support both format versions, instead we'll rewrite UI
>>> markup in all existing Murano Apps (there are not so many of them yet)
>>> and eventually forget that once upon a time the user needed to specify
>>> 'name' field explicitly.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/murano/+spec/dynamic-ui-specify-no-explicit-name-field
>>>
>>> --
>>> Timur Sufiev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> 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/20140710/fd09a169/attachment.html>