Open Stack

On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Devananda van der Veen <devananda.vdv at gmail.com<mailto:devananda.vdv at gmail.com>> wrote:


On Jun 4, 2015 12:00 AM, "Xu, Hejie" <hejie.xu at intel.com<mailto: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.

+1. I fully agree with Devananda on this point. Use the headers consistently, and add helpful errors into the body only as an addition to that behavior, not a substitute.

Adrian

-Deva

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe
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/20150605/0db7ce82/attachment.html>