Open Stack

On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 16:40 +0200, Soren Hansen wrote:
> 2011/10/11 Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com>:
> > I think the versioning rules below are fine, but there are some other
> > things to think about:
> >
> >  - As others raised, what version (if any) should be in the URIs?
> >
> >   We could put the full version number in the URIs so long as we
> >   maintain support for the older, compatible versions i.e. the current
> >   version is 1.5.3 but clients can still use the 1.4.0, 1.5.2 etc. URIs
> >
> >   The only problem I see with that is that it might appear like
> >   clients connecting to the 1.4.0 URI should expect only the features
> >   that were available in 1.4.0.
> 
> Why is that a problem? That seems entirely reasonable to me. If a
> client is written for an old version of the API how would it even know
> to look for these new concepts/features?

Not so much a problem, I guess, as a source of confusion - it's unclear
why the service would expose an identical API via multiple URIs

Cheers,
Mark.