Open Stack

On 2015年03月17日 13:31, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:56:27 +1300
> Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
>
>> On 17 March 2015 at 14:27, Ken'ichi Ohmichi <ken1ohmichi at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I am worried about SDKs making requests that have additional JSON
>>>> attributes that were previously ignored by v2, but will be
>>>> considered invalid by the v2.1 validation code. If we were to just
>>>> strip out the extra items, rather than error out the request (when
>>>> you don't specify a microversion), I would be less worried about
>>>> the transition. Maybe that what we do?
>>> Nice point.
>>> That is a main difference in API behaviors between v2 and v2.1 APIs.
>>> If SDKs pass additional JSON attributes to Nova API now, developers
>>> need to fix/remove these attributes because that is a bug on SDKs
>>> side.
>>> These attributes are unused and meaningless, so some APIs of SDKs
>>> would contain problems if passing this kind of attributes.
>>>
>>> Sometime it was difficult to know what are available attributes
>>> before v2.1 API, so "The full monty approach" will clarify problems
>>> of SDKs and make SDKs' quality better.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Ken Ohmichi
>> Better at the cost of forcing all existing users to upgrade just to
>> keep using code of their own that already worked.
>>
>> Not really 'better' IMO. Different surely.
>>
>> We could (should) add Warning: headers to inform about this, but
>> breaking isn't healthy IMO.
>
> It'd be up to the operators, but there is always the option of simply
> editing the paste.ini file so /v2 is again the produced by the old v2
> code.
>
>
> My main concern about v2 / v2.1 compatibility in practicce (rather than
> just passing the same tempest and uniteststs which does work) is lack
> of feedback. Probably don't exepct positive feedback in many cases but
> we're not really getting negative feedback much either. I really would
> appreciate people actually trying it more real world apps so we get a
> better idea of the compatibility in areas of the code that don't have
> good tempest coverage or have unitests which are incomplete.
+1, v2.1 should be the future
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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