Open Stack

Oops, thanks, I abandoned my one.

2015-03-16 17:09 GMT+08:00 Chen CH Ji <jichenjc at cn.ibm.com>:

> oops, duplication ... I submitted changes to spec after got this info
> since it make sense to me ...
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164229/
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/164234/
>
> Best Regards!
>
> Kevin (Chen) Ji 纪 晨
>
> Engineer, zVM Development, CSTL
> Notes: Chen CH Ji/China/IBM at IBMCN   Internet: jichenjc at cn.ibm.com
> Phone: +86-10-82454158
> Address: 3/F Ring Building, ZhongGuanCun Software Park, Haidian District,
> Beijing 100193, PRC
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Alex Xu ---03/16/2015 02:53:26
> AM---2015-03-16 9:48 GMT+08:00 Alex Xu <soulxu at gmail.com>: >]Alex Xu
> ---03/16/2015 02:53:26 AM---2015-03-16 9:48 GMT+08:00 Alex Xu <
> soulxu at gmail.com>: >
>
> From: Alex Xu <soulxu at gmail.com>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: 03/16/2015 02:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] is it possible to microversion a
> static class method?
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015-03-16 9:48 GMT+08:00 Alex Xu <*soulxu at gmail.com* <soulxu at gmail.com>>:
>
>
>
>    2015-03-13 19:10 GMT+08:00 Sean Dague <*sean at dague.net*
>    <sean at dague.net>>:
>       On 03/13/2015 02:55 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>       > On 03/12/2015 12:13 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>       >> On 03/12/2015 02:03 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>       >>> Hi,
>       >>>
>       >>> I'm having an issue with microversions.
>       >>>
>       >>> The api_version() code has a comment saying "This decorator
>       MUST appear
>       >>> first (the outermost decorator) on an API method for it to work
>       >>> correctly"
>       >>>
>       >>> I tried making a microversioned static class method like this:
>       >>>
>       >>>      @wsgi.Controller.api_version("2.4")  # noqa
>       >>>      @staticmethod
>       >>>      def _my_func(req, foo):
>       >>>
>       >>> and pycharm highlighted the api_version decorator and
>       complained that
>       >>> "This decorator will not receive a callable it may expect; the
>       built-in
>       >>> decorator returns a special object."
>       >>>
>       >>> Is this a spurious warning from pycharm?  The pep8 checks don't
>       >>> complain.
>       >>>
>       >>> If I don't make it static, then pycharm suggests that the
>       method could
>       >>> be static.
>       >>
>       >> *API method*
>       >>
>       >> This is not intended for use by methods below the top controller
>       level.
>       >> If you want conditionals lower down in your call stack pull the
>       request
>       >> version out yourself and use that.
>       >
>       > Both the original spec and doc/source/devref/api_microversions.rst
>       > contain text talking about decorating a private method.  The
>       latter
>       > gives this example:
>       >
>       >     @api_version("2.1", "2.4")
>       >     def _version_specific_func(self, req, arg1):
>       >         pass
>       >
>       >     @api_version(min_version="2.5") #noqa
>       >     def _version_specific_func(self, req, arg1):
>       >         pass
>       >
>       >     def show(self, req, id):
>       >         .... common stuff ....
>       >         self._version_specific_func(req, "foo")
>       >         .... common stuff ....
>       >
>       > It's entirely possible that such a private method might not need
>       to
>       > reference "self", and could therefore be static, so I think it's
>       a valid
>       > question.
>
>       That's a doc bug, we should change it.
>
>
>    Actually it is not a bug. It's controversial point in the spec, but
>    finally that was keep in the spec.
>
>    *http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/kilo/approved/api-microversions.html*
>    <http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/kilo/approved/api-microversions.html>
>
>    The discussion at line 268
>    *https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127127/7/specs/kilo/approved/api-microversions.rst*
>    <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127127/7/specs/kilo/approved/api-microversions.rst>
>
>
> Submit a patch for devref *https://review.openstack.org/164555*
> <https://review.openstack.org/164555>  Let see whether we can get
> agreement....
>
>
>
>
>               -Sean
>
>       --
>       Sean Dague
> *http://dague.net* <http://dague.net/>
>
>
>       __________________________________________________________________________
>       OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>       Unsubscribe:
>       *OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe*
>       <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
> *http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev*
>       <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: 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/20150316/4c092fc6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150316/4c092fc6/attachment.gif>