Open Stack

Let's discuss this in community meeting.

I would suggest drop support for older version at least until we release
Murano 1.0. As soon as we start to guarantee backward compatibility we will
introduce MinimalMuranoVersion instead of Version because format would not
change but some particular template may require feature that was introduced
after specified version.


On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Timur Sufiev <tsufiev at mirantis.com> wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> While adapting Murano's Dynamic UI to the new MuranoPL data input
> format, I've encountered the need to add some new fields to it, which
> meant that the 'Version' field also had to be added to Dynamic UI. So,
> Dynamic UI definition without Version field is supposed to be of v.1
> while upcoming Murano 0.5 release will support Dynamic UI v.2
> processing (which produces data suitable for the MuranoPL in 0.5).
>
> But then the next questions arised. What if Murano 0.5 Dynamic UI
> processor gets definition in v.1 format? Should it be able to process
> it as well? If it should, then to which murano-api endpoint should it
> pass the resulting object model?
>
> I suspect that we have to deal with a slightly broader scope: to which
> extent should Murano components of each new version support the data
> formats and APIs from the previous versions? I suggest to discuss this
> question on the upcoming Murano's community meeting.
>
> --
> Timur Sufiev
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Sincerely yours
Stanislav (Stan) Lagun
Senior Developer
Mirantis
35b/3, Vorontsovskaya St.
Moscow, Russia
Skype: stanlagun
www.mirantis.com
slagun at mirantis.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140324/86e7e8e7/attachment.html>