[openstack-dev] [Nova] Concrete Proposal for Keeping V2 API

Kenichi Oomichi oomichi at mxs.nes.nec.co.jp
Wed Mar 5 05:43:00 UTC 2014

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Smith [mailto:dms at danplanet.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:09 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Concrete Proposal for Keeping V2 API
> > What I'd like to do next is work through a new proposal that includes
> > keeping both v2 and v3, but with a new added focus of minimizing the
> > cost.  This should include a path away from the dual code bases and to
> > something like the "v2.1" proposal.
> I think that the most we can hope for is consensus on _something_. So,
> the thing that I'm hoping would mostly satisfy the largest number of
> people is:
> - Leaving v2 and v3 as they are today in the tree, and with v3 still
>   marked experimental for the moment
> - We start on a v2 proxy to v3, with the first goal of fully
>   implementing the v2 API on top of v3, as judged by tempest
> - We define the criteria for removing the current v2 code and marking
>   the v3 code supported as:
>  - The v2 proxy passes tempest
>  - The v2 proxy has sign-off from some major deployers as something
>    they would be comfortable using in place of the existing v2 code
>  - The v2 proxy seems to us to be lower maintenance and otherwise
>    preferable to either keeping both, breaking all our users, deleting
>    v3 entirely, etc

Thanks, Dan.
The above criteria is reasonable to me.

Now Tempest does not check API responses in many cases.
For example, Tempest does not check what API attributes("flavor", "image",
etc.) should be included in the response body of "create a server" API.
So we need to improve Tempest coverage from this viewpoint for verifying
any backward incompatibility does not happen on v2.1 API.
We started this improvement for Tempest and have proposed some patches
for it now.

Ken'ichi Ohmichi

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list