Open Stack

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I am not suggesting you "share an API" at all. I am requesting that if you
> have a RESTful API planned for your "backup", then you do not use the same
> RESTful API resource endpoint names that Freezer does. Because if you do,
> then users of the OpenStack APIs will have two APIs that use identical
> resource endpoints for entirely different things. So the request is to not
> use Freezer's resource endpoints, which have /backups as its primary
> resource endpoint.
>
> I don't like the fact that Freezer's resource endpoint is /backups, since
> the OpenStack Volume API has a /{tenant_id}/backups resource endpoint, but
> I really, *really* do not want to see a set of OpenStack APIs one of which
> has /{tenant_id}/backups as a resource endpoint, another which has /backups
> as a top-level resource, and still another which has /backups as a
> top-level resource.
>
> It makes for a crappy user experience. Crappier than the crappy user
> experience that OpenStack API users already have because we have done a
> crappy job shepherding projects in order to make sure there isn't overlap
> between their APIs (yes, Ceilometer and Monasca, I'm looking directly at
> you).
>
>
That is a much, much clearer point. One that I will be happy to follow. I
understand and agree with what you are saying.

A more detailed conversation has been scheduled to determine if Ekko and
Freezer can co-exist together sharing resources in a plugin-type fashion.
It is not known if this is possible yet, but if it is not I will certainly
follow your suggestion, Jay. Thank you for your insight!

SamYaple
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160126/a3c183b7/attachment.html>