Open Stack

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Everett Toews <everett.toews at rackspace.com>
wrote:

> On Jan 6, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell <
> kevin.mitchell at rackspace.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 12:19 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
> >> I'm all for consistency. Sounds like a great case for the API Working
> >> Group to document. You can propose a patch describing the way we want
> >> sorting to work.
> >>
> >>
> >> See https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/api-wg,n,z
> >
> > I really think that the API WG should be responsible for the REST API
> > only, TBH, and maybe for the Pythonic APIs.  Once we start talking about
> > CLI options, I think that's outside the API WG's perview, and we
> > probably should have that be up to CLI authors.  My thinking is that a
> > REST API and a Python API are both used by developers, where we have one
> > set of conventions; but when you start talking about CLI, you're really
> > talking about UX, and the rules there can be vastly different.
>
> Agreed. The scope [1] of the API WG is the HTTP (REST) API.
>
> We won’t be touching any language SDKs (one of which is referred to as
> Pythonic APIs above) or any CLIs.
>

Ah, yes, my apologies. I had mistakenly thought these were sorts for the
API.

Yes, I agree this has the potential for a nice cross-project spec.

Anne


>
> Thanks,
> Everett
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/API_Working_Group#Scope
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150107/7df2e58f/attachment.html>