Open Stack

On 10/20/2014 10:26 AM, Amit Gandhi wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification Sam.
>
> Its good to know where the mission of the API working group starts and
> stops.  During the meetup discussions, my understanding was that the
> working group would recommend the technologies to use while building apis
> (e.g. Pecan, validation frameworks, etc) and were in the process of
> looking into tools such as warlock.

Sorry, did I miss something? What meetup discussions are you referring 
to? I'm not aware of any meetings of the API working group so far...

 > Hence the recommendation to add
> another library into the mix for evaluation, based on advise by other
> stackers in the community.
>
> Your response clarifies that the aim of the API working group is just to
> recommend on standardizing the interfaces from various API's (which I am
> looking forward to) and not the libraries used to implement that interface.

I don't really think the working group has decided yet what it will be 
producing, with regards to recommendations and what topics it may 
provide guidance on. Heck, AFAIK, we still haven't settled on a day of 
the week and time to hold IRC meetings! ;)

> For stackers who are interested in different validation frameworks to
> implement validation, I recommend checking out Stoplight.

Just my two cents on this particular topic, I think it's more important 
to standardize ways in which our public REST APIs expose the payload 
expectations and response schemas to clients. In other words... we need 
to focus on methods for API discovery. Once you have standardized 
resource URI, request payload, and response schema discovery, then any 
number of validation libraries may be used.

Best,
-jay