[openstack-dev] [Nova] Concrete Proposal for Keeping V2 API
oomichi at mxs.nes.nec.co.jp
Thu Mar 6 02:33:18 UTC 2014
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:52 PM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Concrete Proposal for Keeping V2 API
> On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 05:43 +0000, Kenichi Oomichi wrote:
> > > -----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.
> Kenichi-san, you may also want to check out this ML post from David
Thank you for pointing it out. That is a good point :-)
I will join in David's idea.
More information about the OpenStack-dev