Open Stack

…I think it is so you can have a header in a request that, once issued, can be passed for service to service, e.g.:

OpenStack-API-Version: identity 3.7, compute 2.11

Henry

> On 18 Jun 2016, at 11:32, Jamie Lennox <jamielennox at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Quick question: why do we need the service type or name in there? You really should know what API you're talking to already and it's just something that makes it more difficult to handle all the different APIs in a common way.
> 
> On Jun 18, 2016 8:25 PM, "Steve Martinelli" <s.martinelli at gmail.com <mailto:s.martinelli at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Looks like Manila is using the service name instead of type (X-OpenStack-Manila-API-Version) according to this link anyway: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/manila/devref/api_microversion_dev.html <http://docs.openstack.org/developer/manila/devref/api_microversion_dev.html>
> Keystone can follow the cross project spec and use the service type (Identity instead of Keystone).
> 
> On Jun 17, 2016 12:44 PM, "Ed Leafe" <ed at leafe.com <mailto:ed at leafe.com>> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2016, at 11:29 AM, Henry Nash <henrynash9 at mac.com <mailto:henrynash9 at mac.com>> wrote:
> 
> > We are currently in the process of implementing microversion support in keystone - and are obviously trying to follow the cross-projec spec for this (http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/microversion_specification.html <http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/microversion_specification.html>).
> >
> > One thing I noticed was that the header specified in this spec is of the form:
> >
> > OpenStack-API-Version: [SERVICE_TYPE] [X,Y]
> >
> > for example:
> >
> > OpenStack-API-Version: identity 3.7
> >
> > However, from what i can see of the current implementations I have seen of microversioning in OpenStack (Nova, Manilla), they use service-specific headers, e.g.
> >
> > X-OpenStack-Nova-API-Version: 2.12
> >
> > My question is whether there a plan to converge on the generalized header format….or are we keep with the service-specific headers? I’d obviously like to implement the correct one for keystone.
> 
> Yes, the plan is to converge on the more generic headers. The Nova headers (don’t know about Manilla) pre-date the API WG spec, and were the motivation for development of that spec. We’ve even made it possible to accept both header formats [0] until things can be migrated to the recommended format.
> 
> [0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/300077/ <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/300077/>
> 
> -- Ed Leafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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://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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160618/f2c7a9c2/attachment.html>