Open Stack

On Jun 4, 2015 12:00 AM, "Xu, Hejie" <hejie.xu at intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, guys,
>
> I’m working on adding Microversion into the API-WG’s guideline which make
sure we have consistent Microversion behavior in the API for user.
> The Nova and Ironic already have Microversion implementation, and as I
know Magnum https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184975/ is going to implement
Microversion also.
>
> Hope all the projects which support( or plan to) Microversion can join
the review of guideline.
>
> The Mircoversion specification(this almost copy from nova-specs):
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187112
> And another guideline for when we should bump Mircoversion
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187896/
>
> As I know, there already have a little different between Nova and
Ironic’s implementation. Ironic return min/max version when the requested
> version doesn’t support in server by http-headers. There isn’t such thing
in nova. But that is something for version negotiation we need for nova
also.
> Sean have pointed out we should use response body instead of http
headers, the body can includes error message. Really hope ironic team can
take a
> look at if you guys have compelling reason for using http headers.
>
> And if we think return body instead of http headers, we probably need
think about back-compatible also. Because Microversion itself isn’t
versioned.
> So I think we should keep those header for a while, does make sense?
>
> Hope we have good guideline for Microversion, because we only can change
Mircoversion itself by back-compatible way.

Ironic returns the min/max/current API version in the http headers for
every request.

Why would it return this information in a header on success and in the body
on failure? (How would this inconsistency benefit users?)

To be clear, I'm not opposed to *also* having a useful error message in the
body, but while writing the client side of api versioning, parsing the
range consistently from the response header is, IMO, better than requiring
a conditional.

-Deva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150604/881cc23d/attachment.html>