Open Stack

On 06/11/2014 02:34 AM, Mark Washenberger wrote:
> I think the tasks stuff is something different, though. A task is a
> (potentially) long-running operation. So it would be possible for an
> action to result in the creation of a task. As the proposal stands
> today, the actions we've been looking at are an alternative to the
> document-oriented PATCH HTTP verb. There was nearly unanimous consensus
> that we found "POST /resources/actions/verb {inputs to verb}" to be a
> more expressive and intuitive way of accomplishing some workflows than
> trying to use JSON-PATCH documents.

Why do tasks necessarily mean the operation is long-running? As 
mentioned before to Brian R, just have the deactivation action be a 
task. There's no need to create a new faux-resource called 'action', IMO...

Best,
-jay

> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com
> <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net
>     <mailto:sean at dague.net>> wrote:
>
>         On 05/30/2014 02:22 PM, Hemanth Makkapati wrote:
>          > Hello All,
>          > I'm writing to notify you of the approach the Glance
>         community has
>          > decided to take for doing functional API.  Also, I'm writing
>         to solicit
>          > your feedback on this approach in the light of cross-project API
>          > consistency.
>          >
>          > At the Atlanta Summit, the Glance team has discussed introducing
>          > functional API in Glance so as to be able to expose
>         operations/actions
>          > that do not naturally fit into the CRUD-style. A few
>         approaches are
>          > proposed and discussed here
>          >
>         <https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-adding-functional-operations-to-api>.
>          > We have all converged on the approach to include 'action' and
>         action
>          > type in the URL. For instance, 'POST
>          > /images/{image_id}/actions/{action_type}'.
>          >
>          > However, this is different from the way Nova does actions.
>         Nova includes
>          > action type in the payload. For instance, 'POST
>          > /servers/{server_id}/action {"type": "<action_type>", ...}'.
>         At this
>          > point, we hit a cross-project API consistency issue mentioned
>         here
>          >
>         <https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-cross-project-consistency-across-rest-apis>
>          > (under the heading 'How to act on resource - cloud perform on
>          > resources'). Though we are differing from the way Nova does
>         actions and
>          > hence another source of cross-project API inconsistency , we
>         have a few
>          > reasons to believe that Glance's way is helpful in certain ways.
>          >
>          > The reasons are as following:
>          > 1. Discoverability of operations.  It'll be easier to expose
>         permitted
>          > actions through schemas a json home document living at
>          > /images/{image_id}/actions/.
>          > 2. More conducive for rate-limiting. It'll be easier to
>         rate-limit
>          > actions in different ways if the action type is available in
>         the URL.
>          > 3. Makes more sense for functional actions that don't require
>         a request
>          > body (e.g., image deactivation).
>          >
>          > At this point we are curious to see if the API conventions group
>          > believes this is a valid and reasonable approach.
>          > Any feedback is much appreciated. Thank you!
>
>         Honestly, I like POST /images/{image_id}/actions/{action_type} much
>         better than ACTION being embedded in the body (the way nova
>         currently
>         does it), for the simple reason of reading request logs:
>
>
>     I agree that not including the action type in the POST body is much
>     nicer and easier to read in logs, etc.
>
>     That said, I prefer to have resources actually be things that the
>     software creates. An action isn't created. It is performed.
>
>     I would prefer to replace the term "action(s)" with the term
>     "task(s)", as is proposed for Nova [1].
>
>     Then, I'd be happy as a pig in, well, you know.
>
>     Best,
>     -jay
>
>     [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86938/
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto: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
>